Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WORCESTER COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

National Housing Development Agency

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the fact that local authorities have not developed adequate housing programmes and in view of the lack of overall planning in private housing, he will introduce legislation to set up a national housing corporation with overall responsibility for public and private housing and to determine public and private housing targets for local authorities.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): There is a good case to be examined for setting up a national housing development agency, but the important thing for the present is for local authorities to be urged to maintain their programmes.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that housing, as a national problem, requires a national solution and that the attitude of some of the Tory-controlled local authorities is one of trying to sabotage the Government's efforts in this field? Does he not agree that it is high time that the Government got

tough with some of these slow housing authorities?

Mr. Freeson: I agree that there has been a lamentable cutting back of the housing programme by some local authorities in recent times, and this is a matter which my right hon. Friend may be pursuing with local authorities. The question of a housing agency, such as my hon. Friend suggests, is one which we can consider further.

Completions

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses he now estimates will be completed during the course of 1969.

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will next publish an estimate of the number of houses to be completed in 1969.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the total of housing completions for 1969.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The number of dwellings under construction is still at a high level. Since the effect of weather and the strength of market demand in the private sector is variable at this time of the year, it is not possible to forecast how many of them will be brought to completion by 31st December, but completions in the year will not be up to the record figure achieved last year.

Mr. Allason: Is not that last statement somewhat of an understatement? As in the first eight months of this year 32,000 fewer houses were completed than in 1968, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about this? Will he have a sense of urgency in his housing programme or will he remain complacent, holding to the idea that by 1973 there will be a surplus of houses?

Mr. Greenwood: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I certainly have a sense of urgency. That is why we have achieved, and shall achieve this year, a much higher figure of completions than the average of 310,000 a year during the last five years of Conservative rule.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this year we shall be well below 100,000 less than the target promised the country by the Prime Minsister? Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to offer in the face of the ever-declining housing programme both in the number of starts and completions? Does he intend to continue to be complacent like this?

Mr. Greenwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will give us help in achieving what is required, although I read in The Sun on 6th October that, speaking at a conference in June, the hon. Gentleman said:
I hope Conservative councils will take great care to resist the temptation to go on building council houses"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—
for all sorts of seemingly good purposes.

Mr. Hunt: Is not the admission which the Minister has just made a sad commentary on the priorities of Socialism? Will he try to appreciate what this housing shortfall will mean in terms of shattered hopes and broken homes?

Mr. Greenwood: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the urgency and, indeed, of the heart-breaking nature of the housing problem. I hope that he will be comforted by the fact that before the end of this year 2 million houses will have been completed under Labour.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the cutting down of council house building proves that Conservatives have their priorities wrong? Is he aware that certain large city councils such as Liverpool City Council are now deciding to bring in smaller house building programmes and are using the excellent 1969 housing Measure as an excuse for taking this step?

Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right in saying that a number of local authorities seem to be falling down on the job. A later Question appears on the Order Paper for today. I am pursuing this matter with the local authorities concerned and I am proposing to see in the near future those which appear to be the most serious backsliders.

Mr. Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the building programmes of even a few Socialist councils are declining?

Mr. Greenwood: One reason why I have declined to give a list is because I know that there are particular factors in the case of certain local authorities, including certain Conservative local authorities. I appreciate that there are difficulties in the way of the house building programme, but there are also ideological reasons in some cases for house building being cut down; and I am afraid that those elements are being encouraged by everything that hon. Gentlemen opposite say.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many homes have been completed in Great Britain this year up to the latest convenient date; and what were the figures for the same period last year.

Mr. Greenwood: I refer the right hon. Member to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 13th October.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How does the right hon. Gentleman, except by adopting his colleague's technique of putting the blame on someone else, reconcile those figures at the end of five years of Labour Government with the unqualified pledges which were given for a great expansion in house building?

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not listening to earlier answers on this subject. The number of houses completed over the last five years has been far in excess of what it was under the Conservative Government. At the moment there are 460,000 houses under construction compared with 434,000 at the end of 1964.

Mr. Rankin: As the Question refers to Great Britain, can my right hon. Friend give us the relevant figure for Scotland?

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid not without notice.

New Towns (Report)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consultations he has had with local


authorities, the Commission for New Towns and other bodies about the Report on the Ownership and Management of Housing in New Towns; and whether he will make a statement about the Government's policy on the recommendations contained in that Report.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): We have had discussions with the Commission for New Towns and Development Corporations about the Report's recommendations for increasing opportunities for owner-occupation in new towns. We will also talk with the local authorities. I am not yet in a position to make a further statement on the future of new town assets.

Mr. Allason: If the Government accept the idea that tenants of new town houses should be permitted to purchase their own homes, why are the Government making it so difficult for this to take place, both by not allowing or by cutting right down local authority housing loans and by charging the full market value for houses when the tenants have been in them for a considerable number of years?

Mr. Skeffington: I am very well aware of the difficulties mentioned in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The answer to the second part is that the arrangement has been that if a house in the circumstances to which he referred is to go back to the authority who have reserved the right to repurchase, then it goes back at a figure which has been agreed between the tenant and the authority.

Housing (Shortage and Surplus)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government in which areas where there is at present a severe shortage of houses he estimates that there will be a surplus in 1973, the year in which Her Majesty's Government estimate there will be an overspill surplus.

Mr. Greenwood: Severe shortages are mainly concentrated in London and other pressure areas. I have not suggested that these can be transformed into adequate surpluses by 1973, because of the condition and distribution of the housing stock there. I intend that, as the housing shortage eases in the country at large, extra resources can be deployed in those

areas in which shortages persist and to accelerate slum clearance generally.

Mr. Kitson: As the Government's house building programme is falling behind in both completions and starts, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say where the surpluses will occur in 1973 and where the shortages will occur?

Mr. Greenwood: A great deal will, of course, depend on the progress that is made by local authorities in the various areas. In view of the record of some of the local authorities concerned, I am afraid that shortages may persist rather longer than one would have hoped.

Mr. Heffer: Could not the resources that are required in pressure areas best be organised by the establishment of a public building corporation, which could enable the house building programmes of the local authorities concerned to be augmented?

Mr. Greenwood: My lion. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dealt with that matter in answer to an earlier Question, although it is certainly a subject which we shall have to bear in mind.

Rent and Mortgage Repayments

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the average monthly council house rent; what is the monthly mortgage repayment on an average house in owner-occupation; and what were the equivalent figures in 1964.

Mr. Freeson: The latest comparable figures are from the Family Expenditure Survey. Council tenants in England and Wales paid an average monthly rebated rent, excluding service charges, of £6 3s. in 1964 and £7 13s. in 1967. Owner occupiers with mortgages made an average gross monthly payment of £10 7s. in 1964 and £14 0s. in 1967. The net monthly mortgage outgoing will have varied according to the mortgagor's tax liability.

Mr. Page: Does not this show a phenomenal rise in the cost of housing? Is there any hope of a decrease or even any hope of keeping the cost of housing stable in the near future? Has the Minister any plans for keeping the cost of housing stable?

Mr. Freeson: The chief way in which, from the point of view of the public sector, we can stabilise costs—this would also have an impact on housing costs across the board—would be to enlarge the programmes at present being cut back, chiefly by people in local councils throughout the country who are friends of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashton: Can my hon. Friend say how much housing subsidies have increased between 1964 and now, and how many more people are now buying their own homes compared with the number then?

Mr. Freeson: Without notice I cannot give a statistical answer, but there has certainly been a major increase in Government help to local authorities and also a rapid growth in the numbers of owner-occupiers during the last few years throughout the country.

Mr. Peter Walker: If the Government really want to bring down the cost of housing, would they not consider abolishing S.E.T., and bringing interest rates down to what they were before the Government came into power?

Mr. Freeson: That question should be directed where it belongs, and that is to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if the hon. Gentleman does not like his nose being rubbed in it, I will repeat that the people chiefly concerned in wrecking housing programmes in different parts of the country are the hon. Gentleman's political colleagues in local government throughout the country.

Mr. Lawson: Can my hon. Friend give the House any indication of the amount of income tax remission being paid in respect of these home purchases?

Mr. Freeson: Not offhand. I believe that when I last had occasion, some years ago, to check the figures, the amount was running nationally at something in the region of £80 million a year, but it is much higher than that today.

Public Sector Housing (Hardship Cases)

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what official studies have been undertaken to determine how public sector housing can

be made to cater for the needs of those in hardship; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: A sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Cullingworth has submitted a report on the purposes, procedures and priorities of council housing. This will be published and sent to local authorities as soon as possible.

Mr. Clegg: Will the Minister, when considering the report, look at the rigidity of the present council house system which leads to much under-occupation which, if cured, could lead to more housing being available to those in dire need?

Mr. Freeson: I have only been made cursorily aware of the contents of the report, having only had 48 hours, but I am sure that the Committee's report on this subject will be wide-ranging. A number of factors are involved. In many instances, the reason for under-occupation is an insufficiency of small units in the communities concerned to which people can move.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is more under-occupation in the private sector than there is in the public sector?

Mr. Freeson: Yes. And my hon. Friend will recall that the Milner Holland Report confirmed this in respect of London, and other statistical exercises show that this is true of the country at large.

Mortgage Repayments

Mr. Clegg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how long the repayment period is for a 90 per cent. mortgage on a £3,500 house originally for 25 years taken out in 1964, where to meet increased interest rates the option has been taken to prolong repayment.

Mr. Freeson: Building societies differ in the periods which they agree to extend repayments as an alternative to increasing them, but they would hardly permit the same monthly payment as in 1964 to continue because that would not be enough to cover current interest.

Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister aware that the effect is that many people who hoped


that when they retired they would have no more mortgage payments now have many years of payments in front of them?

Mr. Freeson: This is true, but it is not the first time that it has happened in the history of mortgage repayments.

Local Authority Houses (Rents)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he now proposes to seek powers after the end of the present calendar year to interfere with the rents fixed by local authorities for their residential properties; and what form he proposes these powers should take.

Mr. Greenwood: This issue is still under consideration but, as my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State said in the Budget debate, restraint in the growth of rents continues to be an integral part of the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As over a month ago the right hon. Gentleman was trying to bully local authorities into acquiescence with the terms of the proposed White Paper, is it not time that he took the House of Commons into his confidence?

Mr. Greenwood: We have been having discussions with local authorities as to the best way of implementing the principles laid down by my right hon. Friend. The best thing to do is to await the outcome of those discussions and proposals for any legislative improvements which may be necessary.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members on this side of the House attach great importance to protection being given to council tenants from the vicious vendetta which Conservative councils are now waging against this class of people?

Mr. Greenwood: It is the Government's view that it is very important to prevent any unnecessary increases, particularly at a time of economic difficulty.

Housing Associations (Land)

Mr. Lawler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied with the operation of the

present provisions with regard to the making available of building land by local authorities to housing associations; and if, in order to control excessive charging, he will seek powers to make it obligatory for local authorities to obtain his consent to charges made when leasing or selling land to housing associations.

Mr. Freeson: I am not aware of any general defect in these provisions, but a sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee is however reconsidering the rôle, structure and finance of housing associations.

Mr. Lawler: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider evidence with which I can supply him that some local authorities are charging as much as 300 per cent. to 1,000 per cent, profit on land sold to housing associations many members of whom have previously been on council waiting lists? If such evidence is prepared in advance of the report by the sub-committee, will the Minister issue a directive to local authorities to reduce such excess charges?

Mr. Freeson: If the hen. Member will let me have the information and ideas he has I will see that his submissions are passed to the sub-committee which is considering this matter.

Tower Blocks (Cost of Strengthening)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now in a position to make a further statement concerning the payment of Government grants towards the costs of strengthening tower blocks resultant upon the Ronan Point disaster; and to what extent the various municipal associations have agreed with the Government's offer of 40 per cent. towards these costs.

Mr. Greenwood: Discussions with the local authority associations are continuing.

Mr. Lewis: I am aware of that, but can my right hon. Friend tell me to what extent he has received any statements from any authorities accepting the proposed suggestion of 40 per cent. which the Government have put forward? Have the Government not been rather niggardly on this matter? Will they not come forward with something better to give some


hope to hard-pressed areas such as those of West Ham, East Ham and other parts of East London?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend made this point clearly in debates on the Housing Bill, but it would not be wise to say what transpired between the local authority associations and myself, except that at the last meeting at official level on 26th September considerable progress was made, for example, in regard to items of expenditure which should or should not count for grant aid.

Mr. Lawler: Does not the Minister agree that there are some older local authorities which have been trying with some urgency to see him but the reshuffle may have caused postponement of their visits? Does the Minister also agree that unless local authorities are clear about any decision which might be made to increase the present 40 per cent., possibly by a contribution towards increased rents at the end of the present housing year, this will not help?

Mr. Greenwood: I am not aware of any hold-up in proposals of local authorities to see me, but if the hon. Member has any case in mind I shall be glad if he will let me know. I am always willing to see Birmingham City Council whenever that is appropriate. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that the work is not being held up. We are prepared to give loan sanction and to make advance payments on a 40 per cent. basis without prejudice to any final figure which may be agreed later.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this 40 per cent. grant is having disastrous effects on certain local authorities' building programmes, because authorities such as Salford will retard the programme rate because of the 60 per cent. which they have themselves to meet? We might find Conservative authorities using this as an excuse for not building houses.

Mr. Greenwood: I have heard that view put before but I think it is a rather exaggerated view. I believe that the assistance the Government have offered is a just amount in these circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the last remark of the Minister, I

beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this matter again.

Local Authority Housing Programmes

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish a further list of local authorities which have recently cut, or propose to cut, their housing programmes; and what steps he proposes to take to reverse this trend.

Mr. Greenwood: As I told my hon. Friend yesterday, I am concerned about these apparent cuts and I am inviting the authorities concerned to discuss their programmes with me.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister bring pressure to bear on the guilty councils, particularly by spotlighting significant cuts in such blatant cases as Bradford, Harrow, Ealing, Coventry and Dudley? Secondly, in addition to seeing them, which I appreciate, would he consider taking powers to refuse to allow cuts in special circumstances?

Mr. Greenwood: I cannot hold out any hope of further legislation at the moment. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. We must all appreciate that the situation in all the areas may not be identically the same, but I can say from the Government's point of view that we have not held back the housing programme of a single priority housing authority.

Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend re-think his last Answer? Will not the cutting of housing programmes be part of the Conservative Party's election gamesmanship? We ought to provide against it for that as well as for social reasons.

Mr. Greenwood: I am fully in sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said, particularly as under the Tory Government completions averaged only 310,000 a year.

Mr. Graham Page: In view of the Minister's own cut in the overall figure from 500,000 to 400,000, or whatever it may be, does he genuinely want local authorities to increase their housing programmes?

Mr. Greenwood: Every priority authority has had full power to build to the maximum of its capacity and will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Residential Development, Berkshire (Appeals)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what changes he has made in policy in respect of appeals coming to him against refusals by Berkshire County Council to permit residential development in certain parts of that county.

Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend's policy remains to consider each appeal on its merits.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the Minister therefore kindly explain why, in a recent appeal made to him on a substantial development in my constituency, in Charvil, the Minister clearly indicated that, with certain technical points, he would welcome the matter being referred back to him, his policy seeming to be to encourage substantial development in an area which is already expanding very fast?

Mr. Skeffington: What I said remains quite true. My right hon. Friend must consider each case on its merits. At the same time, he has to ensure that there is sufficient building land to cater for the requirements in the Home Counties.

Building Land, Wokingham (Acquisition)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has yet given his consent to the acquisition by the Land Commission of 200 acres of building land at Wokingham.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): Acquisitions by the Land Commission do not need my right hon. Friend's consent unless the Commission have to seek his authority to make a compulsory purchase order. They have not so far sought this authority.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I welcome the hon. Member to his new job, in which we intend to roast him if he has to answer for the Land Commission. When an application is made to him in respect of 300 acres adjoining a town which is already expanding at 7 per cent. a year, will he defer to the views of the local authority, who are responsible for the services required to make the houses livable in?

Mr. Howell: I thank the hon. Member for that qualified welcome, although I regret to note that in matters affecting the Land Commission there will not be that degree of objectivity from the hon. Member and his hon. Friends which we should like to see. In other words, the questions will not be debated on their merits. Certainly the views of the local authorities will be fully taken into account by my right hon. Friend.

Interest Rates

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his forecast of the future level of interest rates on borrowing; and what help will be made available to local authorities who have had to suspend certain capital projects.

Mr. Skeffington: As the hon. Member may be aware, it is not the practice of Ministers to make predictions about the future level of interest rates. Local authorities in fact receive very substantial help towards meeting interest charges through the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, the rate support grants and various specific grants.

Mr. Murton: Surely the hon. Member is aware of the dismal record of his Government in these matters. Is he not aware that a great element of uncertainty pervades local government and that they do not know where they will be—until they know what will be the next rate support grant? Will he not give very close consideration to this matter, because it is most unfair to many local authorities who at present have capital projects suspended?

Mr. Skeffington: I am not aware of the situation which the hon. Member describes. I was drawing attention to the fact that massive help is available under the Housing Subsidies Act—far more help than has ever been given

>
before under any Administration—and that the contribution from the Exchequer is 56 per cent. of the total local government expenditure.

Local Authority Mortgages

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a study of the social effects of reducing the amount of money available for local authority mortgages; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Greenwood: The social effects of local authority mortgage lending come under discussion frequently with the local authority associations, and I see no need for a separate Departmental survey. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have recently increased by £25 million the overall limit of mortgage lending by local authorities in England and Wales during the current financial year.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even after that increase it is still £120 million below what it was when the Socialists came to power? Will he promise to restore it in the next year to at least the level that he inherited?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it was at a very high level during the first four years of Labour Administration. I appreciate the importance of this matter, particularly in respect of older houses, and I have advised local authorities to make money available to those who otherwise would find it difficult to raise mortgages. However, any question of an increase must depend on the progress we make with our economic recovery, and the prospects of this are very good.

Mr. Ridsdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman take this matter extremely seriously? Is he aware that a local authority in my part of the world, with a population of 10,000, has precisely £11,000 available for mortgages, a very miserable sum indeed when one realises the number of people who are desirous of getting their own homes on mortgage?

Mr. Greenwood: We would all agree that it is desirable that the amount

should be substantially increased, but within the amount that has been available we have done our best to see that it is distributed fairly between one local authority and another.

Betterment Levy

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the estimated number of persons to have their betterment levy under the Land Commission Act remitted, on the basis that the concessions announced in the Budget are applied to acts or events prior to 5th April, 1969.

Mr. Denis Howell: About 26,000 persons would have been relieved of liability to levy in whole or in part.

Mr. Kitson: As the Government have admitted that this is unfair to some, why are they not prepared to back-date the position even further?

Mr. Howell: It is not for me to play the match again, but I appreciate the strong feelings that have been expressed on this subject. I understand that these matters of retrospection were exhaustively examined during the passage of the Finance Act.

Mr. William Price: Would my hon. Friend agree that no Government reshuffle could be complete without it including the Land Commission? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When will the Government get rid of this piece of bureaucratic nonsense and substitute a policy designed to take the profits from the friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite and put them into the pockets of those who wish to buy their own homes?

Mr. Howell: In so far as that supplementary question concerns the machinery of Government, it may be addressed elsewhere. In so far as it is a hard-headed practical question, I cannot be expected, after 48 hours, to pass judgment on it.

Coastal Pollution

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to introduce legislation to clarify the position of local authorities with regard to coastal pollution.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is intended to put on a legislative basis the co-operative


arrangements which have already been made between local authorities, and for the payment of grants to them. This legislation will be introduced as soon as opportunity permits.

Mr. Page: I am very glad to hear that. The hon. Gentleman says that it will be as soon as opportunity permits, but I am sure that he will realise that local authorities are put in grave difficulties while they are left in doubt about what the legislation will be. May I therefore urge him to bring in the legislation as quickly as possible?

Mr. Howell: I will undertake, in conjunction with the local authority associations, to see what can be done, and let them know our intentions, but the difficulties of programming legislation in the House are, I know, well appreciated by the hon. Gentleman.

Residential Premises (Business Use)

Mrs. Joyce Bulter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce regulations to prevent the use of powered sewing machines for business use in residential premises.

Mr. Skeffington: No, Sir. There are powers in the Town and Country Planning Acts under which the use of residential premises for industrial purposes may be controlled; and in the Public Health Acts, recently strengthened, to secure the abatement of noise and vibration where this amounts to a statutory nuisance.

Mrs. Butler: I accept that complete prevention would probably cause dislocation in some parts of the clothing trade and that this would be wrong, but can my hon. Friend look at the regulations again in order to see whether they can be made more effective in preventing stress to neighbours where excessively noisy machines are used late at night in shared accommodation and flats, and sometimes in buildings of very flimsy structure, because these places are very inadequate?

Mr. Skeffington: If my hon. Friend could show me any breach of the regulations by way of nuisance I should like to look into it. Excessive noise ought to be dealt with under the Public Health Acts.

Protection of the Countryside

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the amount of green belt and agricultural land which has been converted to industrial and housing use in the past five years, he will restate and redefine Her Majesty's Government's policy on the protection of the countryside.

Mr. Skeffington: The policy of Her Majesty's Government continues to be the maximum protection of the countryside commensurate with the needs of essential development. In this respect, the recent Countryside Act and the Town and Country Planning Act will enable policy to be effectively applied.

Mr. Smith: But now that we have six Ministers overseeing the functions of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, does not the Minister think that the time has come to reappraise the whole policy if ever we are to stem the obvious trend towards the abolition of the countryside? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that the new Department should go into the whole question, with the idea of bringing forward a policy that will work?

Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman studies, as I am sure he has studied, the two Acts to which I have referred, he will find that they give new powers, particularly in relation to strategic planning, whereby there is a much greater chance of keeping that balance between town and country. But these matters are always being looked at by the Department to see how far we may improve the situation.

Piccadilly Circus (Development)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a further statement on the development of Piccadilly Circus.

Mr. Skeffington: Following the public exhibition last year, discussions have been taking place between the developers' architects, the Greater London Council and Westminster City Council with a view to the submission of an application for planning permission.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that this place is rapidly becoming a slum,


instead of the hub of the Commonwealth as it should be? Can he say when we may expect actual development to start?

Mr. Skeffington: I cannot give any estimates. I agree that the delay is unfortunate. Anything that the Department can do to assist in the matter, it is doing.

Mr. Lipton: By way of making an immediate start, cannot the Minister declare the space around Eros a slum clearance area?

National Westminster Bank (Office Block)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give an assurance that he will not allow progress to be made with the proposed 600-ft. office block for the National Westminster Bank until his consultations with the local council have been completed and until the matter has been submitted to this House.

Mr. Skeffington: Outline planning permission was given by the City Corporation for the redevelopment of this site in 1964. Detailed proposals are now being considered by the City and I am in touch with them. I can assure the hon. Member that a decision will not be taken without my being given an opportunity to consider whether or not to call in the proposals for decision by the Minister.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he bear in mind that St. Paul's and its surroundings are of great concern to almost everyone in the country, and, indeed, in the world? Will he undertake to let the House of Commons have the information available to his Department so that we also may have an opportunity of expressing our views on whatever decisions are being taken?

Mr. Skeffington: I am not sure that one can create a particular planning procedure only for this particular site, but I agree with the hon. Lady that this is a particularly sensitive spot and that the greatest possible care must be taken about its future development.

Town Centre Redevelopment Scheme, Redbridge

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government

what progress has been made regarding holding the public inquiry into the Redbridge Council's proposals for the Town Centre Redevelopment Scheme.

Mr. Skeffington: My right hon. Friend is desirous of arranging the inquiry as soon as possible, but must await a submission from the G.L.C. with possible amendments to the proposals before him.

Mr. Shaw: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate the anxieties of people who have been living in this blighted area for quite a long time? The development scheme has been going on for many years, and these people are constantly being fobbed off with one excuse or another. Can he do something to expedite the procedure, perhaps by egging on the authorities concerned, and may I have the assurance that once the inquiry has been held as little delay as possible will follow?

Mr. Skeffington: ; I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this matter and that it has gone on for a very long time. This has been one of the difficulties, particularly before we had the new powers in the 1968 Act, but the G.L.C. hopes to advertise its proposals shortly and we may have them by next month.

Greater London (Ombudsman)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to appoint an ombudsman to investigate complaints in regard to local government matters in Greater London.

Mr. Greenwood: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his announcement of 22nd July, detailed proposals for extending the ombudsman system into local government will be worked out in consultation with the local authority associations and other bodies concerned and presented in the context of local government reorganisation. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered in the course of these consultations.

Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the large number of cases which have arisen in London, which has already had its local government reorganisation, have clearly established the


need for a completely objective ombudsman to deal with complaints against local authorities over the whole area and that in the meantime piecemeal attempts like that of the London Borough of Haringey to appoint its own ombudsman are not satisfactory because inevitably he cannot have the same objectivity?

Mr. Greenwood: I have a great deal of sympathy, so has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with what my hon. Friend has suggested, but there is a great deal of ground to be cleared and we shall have to have discussions with local authorities before I can give a very firm answer on what she has suggested.

Tips (Rating)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to derate tips so long as they are being removed.

Mr. Skeffington: Land is liable to rates only when it is beneficially occupied. The commercial extraction of useful material from tips has been held in some cases to be beneficial occupation for this purpose. The effects of rating upon the extraction of shale are under consideration.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Minister bear in mind that many contractors now think that it will not pay them to move these tips—or bings, as they are called in some places—but are they not an eyesore which should be removed?

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member may like to know that I have met representatives of the industry and asked them for detailed figures so that if a case can be made on economics to do this essential work it may be considered.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not wrong that a Labour Government should be giving grants for the removal of these spoil heaps and then Tory councils should accept those grants and then heap on rateable value for removing them?

Mr. Skeffington: Local authorities may have no option when rates are involved. What we have to do is to establish the facts. That is what I am trying to do.

Caravan Sites (Sanitation)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Govern-

ment whether he will, through local authorities, establish standards of sanitation on caravan sites and extend the number of temporary places on such sites for the use of holidaymakers.

Mr. Denis Howell: Questions of sanitation and the acceptable number of caravans per site are controlled by local authorities through site licences. This is a subject of increasing importance, therefore my right hon. Friend has decided to establish a working party to examine these matters and to take account of all the interests involved.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the contribution that these sites can make to the increasing number of holiday-makers, particularly from overseas, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply and ask him to consider urging local authorities to do something about this while there is still time?

Mr. Howell: The point of that question is not lost upon us, but the hon. Member will understand that there are balancing considerations. We think it right to have this looked at and the urgency of having it looked at is something we shall keep very much in mind.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although local authorities have had power to impose conditions not only in regard to sanitation and other facilities in residential areas since the passing of the Caravan Sites Control of Development Act, 1960, many of them have not exercised their powers and they set a bad example on sites which they own? Will he take steps to get the maximum number of local authorities to exercise these powers and also with a view to making them mandatory?

Mr. Howell: There is some substance in the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, but in view of the principle accepted everywhere about freedom of local authorities to control their own affairs, we felt this to be the right course. We think it better to deal with the matter by having the working party in the first instance.

Greater London Development Plan

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the form which


the public inquiry into the Greater London Development Plan will take.

Mr. Greenwood: Precise arrangements for the public inquiry cannot be settled until I have been able to assess the nature and volume of the objections to the Plan. But my hon. Friend can be sure that the fullest opportunity will be given for reviewing the policies and proposals in this important Development Plan.

Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing scepticism as to whether the money will ever be available for the G.L.C.'s grandiose road schemes and of the increasing opposition there is to these schemes in the areas affected? Can he give an assurance that these road plans will be examined by an independent commission like the Roskill Commission which is at present considering the question of London's third airport?

Mr. Greenwood: I repeat that the exact nature of the inquiry must depend upon the extent and nature of the objections that I get to the plan. I think that that is the right policy to adopt at this stage. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the scepticism that is felt about it. I must not prejudge the issue upon that. I can give my hon. Friend a full assurance that the economic, the social, and all other aspects will come within the scope of any inquiry.

Land Commission (Staff)

Mr. Evelyn kING: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the present staff of the Land Commission; what estimate he has of the amount by which the Land Commission was overstaffed on 1st January this year and is now overstaffed; and what estimate he has of the cost to public funds of this overstaffing.

Mr. Skeffington: The staff on 1st October, 1969, was 1,050. On the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix I of the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee 1968–69.

Mr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary unable to give an estimate of the amount of money thus lost, or is he assuming that money over-paid in salaries here, if not wasted, would have been

wasted somewhere else? In any event, is not this over-staffing in a commission whose affairs in any case are highly dubious, something of a public scandal; and who is responsible for it?

Mr. Skeffington: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of looking up the information to which I have referred he may find that a good deal of the substance of his question is entirely misplaced.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the Parliamentary Secretary expect the staff to go up or down during the coming year?

Mr. Skeffington: The staff is continually being reviewed and, with the coming of more sophisticated methods, may well go down.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABLED PERSONS (SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will now recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the social and economic problems of the disabled.

Mr. Speaker: The House will congratulate the hon. Member on the way he has triumphed over his own disability.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion when the results are available of the survey of the chronic sick and handicapped currently being undertaken by the Government Social Survey.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that his answer fails to recognise the urgency of the economic and social problems of the disabled which justify the immediate appointment of a Royal Commission and that the statistical survey to which he referred, although a welcome step forward, should not be used to delay the comprehensive scrutiny of a Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: I think the whole House recognises the very valuable work my hon. Friend is doing in all matters affecting the disabled. My answer was not reflecting any lack of sense of urgency. If the figures now being collected give the information we want, we may be able to proceed to action in a number of directions in which my hon. Friend is


interested without even waiting for a Royal Commission. If they establish the case for a Royal Commission, one can be recommended.

Mr. Dean: Will the Prime Minister at least ensure that a constant attendance allowance for the severely disabled, which is supported in all parts of the House, is introduced at an early date?

The Prime Minister: I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Bill which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is bringing forward. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend has addressed himself to that very question.

Mr. Heath: When will the results of the survey be published? What has happened to the study by the Supplementary Benefits Commission of the number of disabled affected by the wage stop? Two years ago the Commission said that it was conducting this review. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us when we will be able to have it.

The Prime Minister: I think that we shall be having the answers thrown up by the survey quite quickly. I think that some months ago at Question Time the right hon. Gentleman himself referred to the need for more statistics. These should be available shortly. I should like to discuss with my right hon. Friend the question when we can expect the information relating to supplementary benefits.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very special concern which exists about the plight of the young chronic sick and of the excellent work done by Mr. Marsh Dickson and others in that regard? In considering my hon. Friend's suggestion, will my right hon. Friend give particular weight to the claims of the young chronic sick?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made a number of pronouncements on that question, including on the very special question of the young mentally handicapped.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT NIXON (DISCUSSIONS)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions in August with President Nixon.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his meeting with President Nixon at Mildenhall.

The Prime Minister:: President Nixon's stop at Mildenhall on 3rd August provided me with a welcome opportunity to continue at first hand our discussion on international questions which started when the President visited London last February, and on which I have been in touch with him since that time.
In the short time available I was most interested to hear the President's account of his visits to Asia and to Rumania and we were also able to have a useful review of major world problems.

Mrs. Short: Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the President the progress being made towards the holding of a security conference? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the main sources of tension in Europe today is the refusal of certain European nations to accept the existing frontiers in Europe? Did my right hon. Friend make progress on that?

The Prime Minister: On the question of the settlement of the German frontier, the Polish frontier and other issues, there was no need for any discussion, because this has been discussed fully in the past. With regard to the question of a security conference, I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to Questions on this subject just before the Recess.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did the President reveal his attitude to the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to enter the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: These discussions are in fact confidential. I think that the President of the United States fully understands the position of Her Majesty's Government and the decision taken by the House. I do not feel it was a subject to discuss with the President in the short time available.

Mr. Maclennan: Did my right hon. Friend, in his review of the major world problems facing our two countries, have any discussion with the President about the growing inequality of wealth between the rich and the poor nations? Did he form any views as to whether foreign aid would be increased?

The Prime Minister: We are constantly in touch with the United States Government and all other friendly Governments on these questions.

Mr. Lane: What assurance was the right hon. Gentleman able to give President Nixon about Britain's ability to play a proper part in the maintenance of world peace and security after 1971?

The Prime Minister: This has been discussed with the previous President and with the present President, and I think they understand fully what is our position on this matter. As I have told the House before, I have heard no complaints, criticisms or grievances uttered by the United States Government on these questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions which have taken place recently between himself and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; and what plans he has for further discussions.

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his consultations with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make about the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the results of his further discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: On my discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland on 19th August, I would refer to the Communiqué and Declaration published as Command Paper 4154.
On developments since then, I have nothing to add to what my right hon.

Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence said in the debate yesterday.—[Vol. 788, c. 47–65, 152–64.]

Mr. Molloy: Would the Prime Minister not agree that one of the most prominent and dominant features of the present situation is the fact that so many people who have feared social degradation now fear physical violence as well, and that one must put something in place of fear? Would not the recommendations of paragraph 8 of the Communiqué of 29th August and the Hunt Report make a good contribution to this end? Could my right hon. Friend ensure that these recommendations, in consultation with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, are speedily implemented?

The Prime Minister: The statements of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, both in this House yesterday and on his two visits to Northern Ireland, and I think the statements made by many hon. Members yesterday, confirm the basic underlying fact of fear—fear from each side about the other. As to what my hon. Friend calls social degradation, a great deal of progress has been made, both before the recent events in talks with Captain O'Neill and Major Chichester-Clark, and since, in trying to remove some of the economic, social and human rights problems in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that three appeals should now go out to Ulster from this House—for a Catholic response, now that all their grievances have been met, especially to the Hunt Committee's Report, which is the key; for an end to the understandable but very regrettable Protestant backlash in Belfast; and, thirdly, for a rejection of the extremism on both sides which is as horrifying to 90 per cent. of the people in Ulster as it is to all of us in this House?

The Prime Minister: While not associating myself with every word which the hon. Gentleman has used in respect of those three appeals, I should have thought that the message which went out from all parts of the House in yesterday's debate underlined those three appeals and underlined in particular what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on these three questions during his visits to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lubbock: In view of the enormous burden of work which has fallen on the shoulders of the Home Secretary, whose efforts in the cause of peace and social justice in Northern Ireland we all applaud, will the Prime Minister consider appointing temporarily a Minister of State at the Home Office who will deal entirely with the affairs of Northern Ireland and take the opportunity of discussing this matter with Major Chichester-Clark at the earliest opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I considered this seriously in August at the time when the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland came to London. I can see the arguments for it, but I think the arguments against it are still stronger. In dealing with the Northern Ireland Government on the important problems which we face in common, the meetings should either be at Prime Minister level, as they have been to some extent, or they should be on the basis of visits to Northern Ireland by a very senior member of the Cabinet. I do not think that the Northern Ireland Government or the Northern Ireland communities would feel that a Minister of State, however effective, could really replace those contacts.

Mr. McMaster: Can the Prime Minister say what progress has been made in restoring law and order to all parts of Northern Ireland so that citizens, police and army can go wherever they like, and keep the peace, make searches or arrest anyone if and as necessary? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation is a considerable cause of dissatisfaction?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem is to restore law and order. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday on all these questions. I am sure that the hon. Member, thinking about the events of the past few months and indeed of the past 50 years, will feel that some of the steps which are now being taken, including the very valuable Hunt Report and its acceptance by the Government of Northern Ireland, will go a long way to ease some of the problems which have lain dormant and have flared up in the past few years.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESUA

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Mininster if he will make a statement regarding the latest position in Rhodesia and negotitations with Mr. Smith.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest events in Rhodesia and his further consultations with Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Ellis: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the position in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the information I gave to the House before the Recess. Her Majesty's Government remain willing to conclude a settlement on the Rhodesian question on the basis of the "Fearless" proposals. The régime in Rhodesia have repeatedly made it clear that they are not prepared to hold further discussions on any proposals which reflect the six principles endorsed by all parties in this House. Meanwhile, the internal situation in Rhodesia has continued to develop in a reactionary direction.
I have continued to keep in touch with the Heads of other Commonwealth Governments on these matters.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is now transparently clear that the present rulers of Rhodesia have no intention of returning to loyalty or decency? Therefore, would my right hon. Friend consider, in conjunction with other Commonwealth Premiers and leaders of Commonwealth countries, issuing a proclamation to all those who are not honouring the sanctions agreement that they should do so? Would he also consider getting in touch with those in Rhodesia, both black and white, who wish to see a halt to their nation moving so quickly along the road to Fascism?

The Prime Minister: I think it is a fact that the régime in Rhodesia have made it clear that they reject the six principles and that the reason for their rejection of the "Fearless" proposals was their rejection of the six principles.
With regard to words like "Fascism", "racialism" and so on, the House will have seen the new constitution condemned by the leaders of all parties in this House, and will also have seen with some anxiety what has been done in certain land settlement questions, so far as African settlers and land owners are concerned, in recent weeks.
On the matter of sanctions, the question of securing adherence to the United Nations Resolution on this matter is for the United Nations. Meanwhile, we are playing our full part in the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.

Mr. Wall: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is one of the battles he has lost, and, however much we may dislike certain aspects of the proposed new constitution, does he not realise that sanctions are only uniting Rhodesia in further undermining British influence?

The Prime Minister: They may be uniting one-twentieth of the population. They are not uniting Rhodesia. If by winning the battle the hon. Gentleman means that I should have accepted the squalid surrender which he and others have suggested I should have accepted, I am proud to have lost that battle.

Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is now a position of stalemate, which may continue for a longer or shorter time, but that sooner or later with this régime there will be trouble there; and will he enlighten the House as to what thought he has given to what should be done when that situation is reached, what posture he will accept and what we should do then?

The Prime Minister: Policies of the kind pursued in Rhodesia, contrary to the stern warnings of successive Governments in this country, which have been repeatedly pressed on those who first had the legal power and now have illegal control, can in the long run only lead to a denial of human rights and progress of the subject races there and to increasing problems for all races there. We have warned them of this. The great development potential of Rhodesia, which we all recognise, through their raw materials and the native skills of all races, is being denied because of this decision taken

against the advice of all parties in this House.

Mr. Amery: Seeing that sanctions have failed to bring down the Rhodesian Government in weeks, months or years, and seeing that they are no longer a bargaining weapon in negotiations, can the Prime Minister tell us what the sanctions are for? Are they just a gesture, and, if so, is it not a pretty expensive one?

The Prime Minister: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman began his supplementary question by referring to a totally illegal régime as a Government, I do not take the rest of his question very seriously. But it is about time that some right hon. Gentlemen decided where they stood on this issue. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a member supported the six principles. Those principles must still be maintained by the House.

Mr. Woodburn: As my right hon. Friend has made clear that all parties desire an honourable settlement of this dispute, and as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear that he has some secret formula which he proposes to bring in after he becomes Prime Minister of this country—that prospect being rather a distant one—will my right hon. Friend ask the right hon. Gentleman to go out now to Rhodesia, use his secret formula, and bring back a solution to the problem?

The Prime Minister: As the assumption in my right hon. Friend's preamble to his supplementary question envisaged not weeks or months but decades, not years, clearly it is a hypothetical question. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has a secret formula at all. He was talking to the Tory agents in Brighton, and one understands the sort of mood he must be in. But he has supported the "Fearless" terms; he regards the "Fearless" terms as having gone as far as this country can go, so I understand from what he said last year. Since the régime rejects the "Fearless" terms because they adopt the six principles, and since the right hon. Gentleman is tied to the six principles. I do not believe that he has any secret formula.

YORKSHIRE COALFIELD (UNOFFICIAL STRIKE)

Mr. R. Carr: ((by private Notice)asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement about the unofficial strike in the coal industry.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): About 80,000 miners employed in the Yorkshire coalfield came out on unofficial strike yesterday in support of a claim by surface workers for a shorter working week.
The National Union of Mineworkers is claiming a 40 hour week, inclusive of meal times. The National Coal Board has offered a 40 hour week excluding meal-times, but the union rejected this offer last Thursday.
Negotiations are, however, continuing between the union and the N.C.B. in the light of further wages proposals made by the union on Thursday last.
My Department is, of course, keeping in close touch with the parties.

Mr. Carr: I am sure that the right hon Lady realises that we recognise and welcome the great improvement in industrial relations in recent years in the coal industry, and I think that she would realise, also, that we are asking her this Question today largely at the direct invitation almost of her right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and Minister of Power yesterday. Against that background, I put this question to the right hon. Lady.
How does the machinery for implementing the T.U.C. binding commitment to the Government come into operation in a case like this, particularly in view of the serious danger of the strike spreading? Has that machinery come into operation? If not, is the right hon. Lady in touch with the T.U.C. about bringing it into operation?

Mrs. Castle: The machinery is in operation. My Department is in immediate and constant contact with the T.U.C. in situations of this kind. In this situation it was not necessary. Mr. Feather had himself taken an initiative in getting in touch with the National Union of Mineworkers.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen and appreciated the strong condemnation of the strike which has come from the President of the N.U.M. and his appeal to his members to go back to work so that negotiations can be continued fruitfully. It is, therefore, clear that the promise given is being fulfilled, that the T.U.C. and the union concerned would make their best endeavours to get the men back to work in a situation like this.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not time that we in this House made a declaration that these men are entitled to what they are asking for? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1931 at Geneva, on behalf of the then Labour Government, I managed to secure an international convention for a 7¼hour day for miners, and that they are still asking for it? Is it not about time we considered the merits of the proposal?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's priorities. In this I prefer the argument put forward by Sir Sidney Ford, when he said that the interruption by an unofficial strike of negotiations, which, after all, were going on and are still in train, could only hinder the achievement of the goal which the N.U.M. had set itself. We have a principle here, the principle that the interruption by unofficial strikes of normal procedures which are functioning effectively does not help to achieve the very ends which my right hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Lady make clear to the striking surface workers that their action is likely to imperil the use of coal in major power stations, including, notably, the Drax power station, as warned by Lord Robens the day before yesterday, and will she add all her authority to Lord Robens' earlier statement?

Mrs. Castle: No one could be complacent about a situation in which about 100,000 tons of production are being lost each day. It is true that anything which endangers the profitability of the Coal Board is bound to affect its future prospects.

Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the ill-informed statement which has just been made from the benches opposite, will my right hon. Friend accept that my


constituents and those of many other Members from the Yorkshire coalfield are convinced that these negotiations have dragged on for far too long and that they are acting under a serious sense of grievance?

Mrs. Castle: The negotiations were in normal process when they were interrupted in this way. The offer made by the Coal Board was not formally rejected by the union till last Thursday, and the union has at the same time tabled a wages claim. The Coal Board is saying—rightly, I think—that the questions of hours and of wage increases must be examined together. Therefore, it is in the interests of the men that there should be a return to work so that the negotiations can be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Emery: Is it not true that, if the powers urged by the right hon. Lady in the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", had been given to her, she would have been able to delay the unofficial strike and obtain the official working of the official machinery?

Mrs. Castle: What we were trying to do in the White Paper, and what, I think, the right hon. Gentleman in that constructive speech which he made to the Conservative Party conference said we must all try to do, is to create an attitude of mind in which the best endeavours of union leaders are thrown behind the use of established procedures. Clearly, the best endeavours are being used in this case. That being so, I suggest that it is a pity that twice in two days we should have had this matter raised on the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I do say that. This strike is only 24 hours old. The union is using its best endeavours, and it is in the interests of all of us that we leave it to do so.

Mr. Carr: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the only reason this had to be raised a second time is that her right hon. Friend yesterday refused to answer the Question on the ground that only she could?

Mrs. Castle: The Question tabled to my right hon. Friend was answered fully by him within his powers, and anybody who objectively reads the HANSARD report will find this only a frivolous excuse for tabling the Question again.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN SCOTLAND (REPORT)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, which was published, together with a short version, on 25th September.
Hon. Members have by now had an opportunity to study the Report, and will have been impressed by the comprehensive treatment which the Commission has given to this important and complex subject. Lord Wheatley and his colleagues have already been thanked by the Government for their work, and I am sure that this House will also wish to acknowledge its great indebtedness to them.
The structure of Scottish local government has evolved over many centuries. The earliest of the burghs received their royal charters in the first half of the 12th century; and since then the system has developed and expanded in piecemeal fashion as population increased and local authorities were given responsibility for the provision of new services. Reorganisation Acts of 1889 and 1929 laid the foundation of the present structure, and few would claim that it can now deal adequately with all the demands which are made upon it.
The Report proposes to replace the present system by a two-level structure, consisting of seven regional and 37 district authorities: these 44 authorities would assume the functions of the existing 430 county, town and district councils. This proposal is made in order to satisfy two essential requirements: first, the need for authorities with sufficient resources and power to enable them to provide services effectively; and secondly, the need for local people to understand and to feel involved in the operation of the democratic process.
The Commission recommends that the regional authorities should exercise the major functions with the heavy expenditure, including strategic planning, transportation and roads, housing, education, the personal social services, and the police and fire services; and that the main responsibility of the district authorities should be to plan and develop the local environment.
It proposes also that, at a more local level, communities which so wish should be able to form community councils to express local opinion and to provide certain local facilities.
On the major principles the Commission is unanimous. Two Commissioners, the hon. Members for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), dissent from the majority recommendation about district authorities. They believe that local planning should be the responsibility of the regional, and not the district authorities, and that if this were accepted there could be many more than 37 second-level authorities. There are also reservations about the status to be given to Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles.
The Government welcome the Commission's fundamental approach to the problems and the broad objectives for local government which it has stated. They accept that major rationalisation of local government in Scotland is necessary; that this must involve a radical reduction in the number of authorities with executive powers; and that the division between town and country should be brought to an end. We agree with the Commission that it is vital that Scottish local government should enjoy greater status and responsibility than it does now, and that it should be so reformed as to enable central Government to give local authorities more freedom and power.
What the final pattern should be cannot be settled without further consultation. I have already invited comments from all interested bodies. The process of consultation will be thorough, although we appreciate the importance of keeping the period of uncertainty to a minimum.
Our objective is to introduce comprehensive legislation as soon as possible. It is our aim to complete in the early part of next year our consultations on the Commission's proposals for the basic structure and division of functions. We intend to announce decisions on these basic questions before proceeding to the further consultations that will be necessary on the more detailed recommendations, concerning, for instance, the safeguarding of staff interests and the precise definition of boundaries.
Proposals for the reorganisation of local government have now been made for Wales, England and Scotland. There are differences between these proposals. This is not unexpected because of the differences between the three countries, for example, in their history, geography and distribution of population, and the Government's final decisions in each case will have full regard to the particular circumstances of the country to which they relate.
The Royal Commission's Report presents us with a unique opportunity to shape a large part of Scotland's future. It is an opportunity which the Government, for their part, welcome and accept.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We are all indebted to the Chairman and members of the Wheatley Commission for the thorough and comprehensive way in which they have tackled an enormous task. The Report is clearly the start of an important public debate in Scotland.
There are two points on which I have questions to put to the Secretary of State. The first—and he did not touch on this in his statement—is that there is a recommendation in the Report that there should be a special inquiry on the finances of local government. This is urgent, and we regret that nothing has been done so far on this. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to get this special inquiry into finances under way?
Second, it is plain, from its reception in Scotland, during the past three weeks, that this is a controversial Report. Will the Secretary of State guarantee adequate time for full consideration of the recommendations and for the expression of views, and undertake net to adopt the attitude he took over the amalgamation of water authorities in the Water (Scotland) Act, when he bulldozed it through without allowing any change in the recommendations of an advisory committee?

Mr. Ross: We are already at work on the question of finances, and possible alternatives to, and improvements in, the rating system are already being examined. As to timing, we must get the balance right. We have had presented to us three years' work by a Royal Commission. The Report is very full. We do not want either to stifle discussion or to let things drag on where one wants to


limit as far as possible the time of unrest and upheaval.
I have asked the local authority associations and others to let me have their written comments by the end of January. I shall thereafter go ahead with further consultations necessary for decisions on functions and structure—to deal with just those two points and get them clear first in a White Paper and then to go on to the other matters. I think that that is fair enough.

Mr. Willis: As part and parcel of the consultations my right hon. Friend proposes, will he make arrangements for those proposals to be fully discussed by Scottish Members, either in the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Ross: We can have a look at that.

Mr. Russell Johnston: May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little on the question of finance? Do I gather from his answer to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) that the Government do not intend to set up a separate committee? Does he consider it possible to implement the functional and structural changes in local government without necessarily at the same time proceeding with any financial changes?

Mr. Ross: Anyone who has read both this Report and the Sorn Report will appreciate that the eventual structural change will have a bearing on viability, which, in turn, will have a bearing on finance. We have been looking at the question of a financial review from the point of view of urgency and immediacy. I do not think that it requires a separate commission to go over this for another three years. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Sorn Committee looked into this when it looked into rating, so there is quite a lot to draw upon in the information we already have.

Mr. William Hamilton: How wide are the terms of reference of any committee or commission looking into possible financial arrangements of the new authorities? Does my right hon. Friend intend to marry, in the timetable, the proposals of that committee or commission with the functional operations of the new proposed authorities? Which Minister will

be responsible for handling these negotiations? Is he in another place?

Mr. Ross: No special commission has been set up for this purpose, so we are wide-ranging. We also have certain guidance from the Royal Commission. I am asking my noble Friend Lord Hughes, the Minister of State, who sits in the House of Lords, to conduct these negotiations.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that our best thanks to the Commissioners would be the implementation of their Report? Do I take it from his statement that implementation is proposed in two legislative bites?

Mr. Ross: No, I did not say so. I said that the negotiations on implementation would first deal with the main problems of functions and structure and then, having got that settled, with the production of a White Paper, we would follow on with more detailed discussions about boundaries and all the other aspects, producing yet another set of decisions. I pointed out that then we would be ready to move into legislation.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all Scottish Members will welcome this Report as an opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate in the country and in this House? Is he further aware that our minds have always been firmly made up that we could not prescribe the powers, functions and geographical nature of our local authorities unless we had the financial structure agreed to previously? That has been the decided policy of the Scottish Labour Group and I hope that we shall not depart from it.

Mr. Ross: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that this was one of the basic facts in the Report itself, which speaks about viability for an area in relation to functions and finance.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Wheatley recommendations, in proposing to divide Scotland into seven amorphous chunks, are an example of the Government's promised policy of devolution? Is there not a danger that, on the contrary, there will be great, centralist local authorities which will take the "local" out of local government?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady should read closely what the Royal Commission has said about each region—I shall not now commit myself to how many there will be—submitting a scheme of management giving an indication of its democratic viability so as to ensure that we shall get both effective local government and effective democracy at the same time.

Sir M. Galpern: In view of the mixed reception of the Wheatley Report and the fact that there has been what seems to me to have been an inspired Press leak that the reorganisation of local government in Scotland will not take place before 1975, does not my right hon. Friend consider that more time than 12 weeks should be given to local authorities to formulate their views on the more important of the two propositions, namely, the broad reorganisation? From my experience of local government, I feel that they should get far longer than 12 weeks to consider these wide-ranging alterations.

Mr. Ross: The local authority associations and their constituent parts are not coming new to this. Many of them gave evidence to the Royal Commission. We now have the advantage of the distilled wisdom of the Commission and against that background we should not require an infinite length of time to make comments. Indeed, I would be worried that some of the local authorities might make their comments far too early. I think that three months is a fair enough length of time to be allowed.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the recommendation in paragraph 1038 where the Report suggests that any reorganisation should involve transferring a larger burden of financial responsibility from the central Government to the local authorities? Is the right hon. Gentleman also looking at a revision of the rating system or alternatives to it?

Mr. Ross: Obviously, any change in the method of raising finance will have its implications for the rating system. There is no doubt about that. If we are to give more power and freedom with that power to the local authorities, then we want to make them as viable as possible in relation to the moneys they can raise. I think that that goes without saying.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: How is it possible to give the local authorities greater status and responsibility without looking at all the financial aspects? Cannot my right hon. Friend be more forthcoming about a debate rather than just saying that he will consider it? Surely we are to have an opportunity to debate the matter before he announces his decision.

Mr. Ross: I am not yet Leader of the House. Matters suggested for debate are for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I may add that many of the functions I exercise which do not involve money at all could well be exercised properly by stronger local authorities.

Mr. Galbraith: In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the old division between country and town should be ended. Why should it be ended? The interests of town and country are often different. In what Session does the right hon. Gentleman expect legislation to be introduced? Will it be the next?

Mr. Ross: I think that we want legislation to be introduced as soon as possible consistent with a proper balance in relation to discussion. I think that the ending of the strict division between town and country is one of the modern facts of life. Let us take Glasgow City as an example. There we have people being moved from the centre while people from the country are coming to live just beyond the fringe of Glasgow. There is more community, very often, between those people living just outside a city and those living just inside it than there is between the people who are living just inside it and those who are living in the centre. The present division is quite artificial.

Mr. William Baxter: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Leader of the House to see that this matter is debated in the Scottish Grand Committee within the next two or three weeks?

Mr. Ross: I have noted the wish of hon. Members to debate this matter, and I welcome it. I will certainly draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite unrealistic of him to try to limit debate on this subject of the White Paper to structure


and functions? It is impossible to consider these separately from the allied problems of boundaries and finance. Will he give us an early opportunity to debate the whole matter and give all local authorities the opportunity to make known their views on all these points as soon as possible?

Mr. Ross: I am not limiting anyone in what he discusses, but in the conduct of the negotiations we have suggested that we should, in the first place, get agreement, or come to the point of decision, about functions and the main structure, which are basic to the other things which will follow thereafter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

HANDLEY PAGE FACTORY, HERTFORDSHIRE

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent public consideration, namely,
the impending closure of the Handley Page factory in Hertfordshire".
This matter is specific because 500 men have just received redundancy notices and a further 4,200 are due to receive them. It is important for three reasons. The first concerns the defence of the Realm. Our whole fleet of Victor bombers was built by Handley Page and it is a requirement of the Royal Air Force that these bombers be converted into tanker aircraft. The development work on this is lodged with Handley Page and if the factory were closed down and the work given to another company, the cost to public funds would be much greater—about an extra £10 million.
It is also important for the export potential. Jetstream aircraft are being built, many of them for the United States, possibly to the value of about£100 million. If the firm closed down, we would, therefore, lose dollar exports.
Thirdly, it is important because, if this factory is closed down, the men will be redundant, and redundancy payments will fall on the Government to the tune of

about £1½ million. It is urgent because, unless the Government step in and save the company, the results which I have outlined will ensue and, in my submission, Parliament should be given the opportunity, before the axe falls, of discussing this issue.
The factory is just over the borders of Watford in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), but he is at present in the United States. I have, as a matter of courtesy, mentioned the matter to the Opposition Chief Whip, who has considered it and who understands my reasons for bringing the matter forward urgently.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) was courteous enough to inform me that he would make an application under Standing Order No. 9. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending closure of the Handley Page factory in Hertfordshire".
As the House knows, under revised Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that yesterday the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) raised a question of privilege concerning an article which appeared in the Sunday Times of 12th October, 1969. He submitted that allegations in this article against himself as Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee and as a member of the Select committee on House of Commons (Services), disclosed a breach of privilege.
As the House knows, it is not Mr. Speaker's duty to pronounce on whether


passages in the article in question do or do not constitute a breach of privilege. All the Chair has to rule on is whether the hon. Gentleman, in his submission, has made out a prima facie case of breach of privilege to the extent that this matter may be given priority over the Orders of the Day.
Accordingly, having studied the article and the precedents involved, I have to rule that a prima facie case has been established. It is now necessary, in accordance with the practice of the House, for a Motion to be moved, and then it is up to the House to decide what course to follow.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls on me, as Leader of the House, in accordance with past practice, to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It would, I think, be in the interests of the House as a whole if it were decided that no further debate should take place at this stage.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am extremely doubtful whether it is right that the House should accept the Motion moved by the Leader of the House, and I will state briefly why I hold that view.
In taking this attitude, I am not in any sense reflecting upon the decision which you have made, Mr. Speaker, or upon the way in which the Leader of the House has followed the previous practice of the House, but, for reasons which I shall state, I cannot agree with him that it is right or desirable that the House should deal with these matters without debate
I am making no comment whatsoever on the rights and wrongs of the matters which are raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell); I am in no position to do so. Less still am I commenting on his stewardship as Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee and the endless flow of gastronomic delights with which he enticed us and which were so beneficial to the Exchequer even if ruinous to our pockets and our digestions. I make no comment on those matters.
I am, however, concerned about the way in which the House deals with matters of privilege and I do not think it is right that we should proceed to refer this matter. As the House knows, there has been over many years a growing concern on both sides of the House about the way in which privilege was invoked and, to deal with the matter, the House followed its general practice of setting up a Committee to examine the question, a Committee which reported to the House, I think, at the end of 1967.
Of course, I am not saying, and no hon. Member is entitled to say, that the House is called upon to accept the Report of the Committee; the House has every right to pronounce itself upon the Report. After much pressure, a debate was secured earlier this year when the Report of the Committee was discussed; and a very unsatisfactory debate in many respects it was, because the Government gave no clear indication that they were prepared to present to the House their findings on that Report.
The Leader of the House will recall that in that debate I stated that if the Government were not prepared to come forward with any better proposals for dealing with this awkward question some of us would have to resort to direct action, and the direct action that is available to us is that we shall oppose every request for a matter to be referred to the Committee of Priveleges until the Government have given us time to settle the matter.
It is the right course because, although the method by which procedure cases are dealt with has not exactly been condemned by the Committee—that might be too strong a word—at any rate the gravest doubts and suspicions have been cast upon the way in which the House under its precedent deals with this matter of privilege, and it is the general conclusion of those who sat upon the Committee that we should alter the whole of that procedure. Here we are proposing to proceed with a privilege case without altering that procedure, and we should not be prepared to refer any further matters to the Committee of Privileges until the House has considered the propositions that the Government will put forward to deal with it. I will in a moment make a proposal as to how the Government might deal with it.
My second reason, again not commenting on the merits of the case, for believing that it should not be referred to the Committee of Privileges, is that it deals with precisely one of the major matters that was discussed by the Committee. It was the view of all the members of that Committee who examined this subject—that does not mean that other hon. Members are bound—that it was undesirable that hon. Members should have a shield to protect themselves against defamation which was not available to other citizens in the land. Proposals were, therefore, made for trying to alter that state of affairs.
From what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said yesterday, it is quite clear that this is a case which comes within that compass, exactly the kind of case which was discussed in this context by the Committee and upon which the House itself has not yet pronounced. If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has been defamed, and it may very well be that he has been, he has every right to a remedy, but the remedy, in my belief, should be a remedy provided by the laws of the land and not by the privileges of Parliament.
The reason that I hold that view is that it is only if the remedy is provided by the law of the land that other people's rights will be protected outside this House. It is only by that method one can ensure that the frontiers of free debate are clearly defined for other people. One of the conclusions of the Committee on Privileges, which examined the matter, was that the law is far from clear and that people outside the House are in a state of inevitable uncertainty as to what they can say about proceedings in this House and its Committees.
The House has a responsibility to put its own affairs in order. If it is to provide a sense of justice in dealing with these matters, then it must deal with the question. It must not push it off from month to month, from year to year, and say, "We will merely proceed to send privilege cases to the Committee without dealing with the fundamental question of principle."
In allegiance to the pledge that I gave to the Leader of the House in that debate, I will oppose this Motion unless the Government offer the remedy which is now

within their power to offer. That remedy is a pledge that in the next Session they will deal with this whole question. I am not saying that they have to accept a report 100 per cent., but that they should put forward comprehensive proposals to deal with the matter in the next Session.
If they will do that—and I do not consider that it is the best way of dealing with such matters—I would agree that the matter should go through without any opposition in the House. But if the Leader of the House cannot give such an assurance, I urge the House to oppose the Motion.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—I mean no offence to him—has been grossly unjust, on the merits of the case, in an attempt to carry out his blanket promise to oppose every case. Cases should be opposed or supported on their merits.
What my hon. Friend has not said is that if the Report of the Select Committee on Privileges was carried out, the case would not go to the courts. The case would go before a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Privileges and then be handed on to the Committee itself as peculiarly a case which should come before the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) dealt fairly with this matter yesterday when he said:
I have not yet sought to exercise my legal remedies with regard to this particular article …
although it is known that in other cases he has gone to the courts and issued writs. Why has he done so? He said:
… I am advised that no redress could be obtained at law for many months due to the normal legal process and also in order that the matter should not become sub judice, which could possibly prevent me from asking this House to decide at the earliest moment on a matter which affects its privileges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 46.]
The Sunday Times articles may be matters over which my hon. Friend could seek redress outside. I do not want to be offensive to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, but he is in a financial position to take such action. Anybody else in similar circumstances in a matter of libel could not do so, since they would not have the resources. It would not be


a matter for legal aid. It would make M.P.s the complete victims of people with money.
I ask the House to look at this matter as a whole. Let us forget that it deals with refreshments and touches the Catering Sub-Committee. We should remember the case which was before us not very long ago, in which the House dealt harshly with a junior member of the House about the premature disclosure of a document.

Mr. John Mendelson: We were wrong there.

Mr. Pannell: That may be so. The hon. Gentleman could debate that on another occasion, but as a good democrat he will bow to the will of the House. The hon. Member in question felt that he had been justly dealt with.
That case touched upon the premature disclosure of a document which had not been published. There is something of that nature inherent in this matter which is now before us. If Mr. Speaker had found a prima facie case on nothing else, he would have had to grant it on the basis of premature disclosure.
This is a matter which affects the House itself. No court in the land could have dealt with it in the same knowledgeable way as could the Select Committee on Privileges. Let us not take too much notice of how people outside would be dealt with. We in this House bear the heat and burden of the day. We suffer attacks in the electoral process to become Members, attacks which no other body of persons have to stand up to.
Unless the House is prepared to protect its own affairs, it will go down in esteem. Nobody enters the House with a great reputation that is taken at face value. A Member must win his way and earn our esteem by the sort of person he is within the comradeship of the House of Commons. Therefore, a Member must be dealt with as one of us. We must ask whether the Member has offended against our standards, whether he has been unjustly defamed.
Even if Mr. Speaker had not found this case on its merits to be a prima facie case, the House would have been bound in its own interests if not in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, to set up a special Select

Committee to investigate these charges I feel most strongly on this matter. Although I have been associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale on many other occasions, on this occasion I feel that he is wrong to oppose the Motion.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: In a number of cases of privilege raised in the House lately, the House has found itself in difficulty, for the reason which has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), that there has been presented a Report on privilege on which no action has been taken. In this instance the House is in a slightly easier position because the Committee's Report has now been debated. It remains for the Government to take action upon it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that I hope the Government will soon take action on it and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give the pledge for which the hon. Member has asked and that action will be taken next Session.
In the meantime, it seems to me that, once the Speaker has ruled that there is a prima facie case of privilege, then a remedy lies to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell). That remedy ought not to be denied him. So long as the remedy is available to us, and the Speaker has ruled in the way in which he has ruled, then, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman, and also in fairness to the newspaper concerned, the matter ought to be considered.
In these circumstances there lie before us two opportunities, either to debate the matter now, to have a vote and reach a decision, or to refer it to the Committee of Privileges. Without making any judgment on the matter, I should have thought, judging from the extract read to the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Buckingham, that to a certain extent it is a complicated matter from the point of view of the facts and a judgment upon them. I would not feel in a position to be able to reach a decision after a debate in the House this afternoon. Therefore, I would urge that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
In the most recent cases considered by the House, the House has accepted the investigation by the Committee and its


judgment without asking for it even to be debated. I believe that the House has confidence in the Committee and its work. Therefore, although I accept that matters may be involved as a result of action taken by the Government in which the case could better be disposed of outside the House, it would be wrong for the House to deny to the hon. Member for Buckingham the remedy which exists for him under the present rules.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has fairly put the point of view that this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges. He asked me to respond to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I respond to that plea. Obviously, differences are involved. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that even when we debated, on 4th July, the Report of the Committee of Privileges there were differences of view.
This matter goes right across party. Therefore, I could not commit myself to saying that the action would be entirely that which would be adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. But I give him the promise—I thought that I had given an indication of it in July—that there will be decisions on the Committee's Report.
I will respond to the plea of the Leader of the Opposition. I have been in consultation with my colleagues already, and I hope shortly to be in a position to announce the Government's intentions. It is an urgent matter. I will speed it up as much as I can and ensure that that will come forward next Session.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will not press the matter to a Division.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I want, first, to deprecate my right hon. Friend's original suggestion that this matter should be passed to the Committee of Privileges without any debate——

Mr. C. Pannell: He did not say that.

Mr. Mendelson: He said that he thought that it would be wiser for it to be done in that way.
Secondly, I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is merely a matter affecting an individual case. It is also a problem which involves a matter of principle, and we have a duty to take note of growing opinion in the country that privilege is used in a way which was not originally intended by the constitution. I say that on the general principle of the matter, and do not refer to the specific case in question.
We have an unwritten constitution, but that does not mean that there are not a number of conventions which are understood by people in the country. The main reason for privilege at all is where an hon. Member is prevented from carrying out his duty to his constituents. That was always the most powerful argument for privilege. If something or someone threatened an hon. Member, hindered him in reaching this assembly, or attempted to dissuade him from acting freely according to his conscience in trying to protect his constituents against the high and the mighty and others who might threaten him, privilege was said to be invoked.
The term "privilege" is a misnomer, and it ought to be changed. It is merely the right to protect the interests of the citizen. Therefore, we have to be very careful whenever such a case comes before us and a Motion of this kind is moved by the Leader of the House in any Administration. We have to show the country by debate that we are careful to distinguish between the kinds of privilege involved.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) forces the matter to a Division, I will support him. I have never believed that we should go beyond the strict interpretation of "privilege" unless the gravest issues are involved. If an issue was so grave that the whole working of parliamentary procedure was affected, and it could be said that the working of Parliament itself was challenged, then I would be prepared to support a Motion saying that, although the case did not directly concern the protection of the rights of the citizen, it should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Turning to what the Leader of the Opposition has just said, this is not a question whether we have confidence in the Committee of Privileges. I have


complete confidence in the members of that Committee and in their workings. But that is not what we are debating, and it should be put out of our minds if there is a vote today. The only matter before the House is whether this case should be considered by the Committee of Privileges in the first place, and it would be no vote of no confidence in the members of that Committee or in their past work if we decided not to refer this matter to the Committee.
It is very important that we do everything possible to add to the prestige of Parliament. The best way of doing that is to get the electorate to understand all the time what we are doing. There are many people who are campaigning actively against Parliament, and there is not enough understanding of what we are doing a good deal of the time——

Mr. Emanuel Shinwell: Balderdash.

Mr. Mendelson: I know that my right hon. Friend does not agree with the case that I am putting forward. That is his right. None the less, I have the right to put my case, and it does not necessarily have to be worse than his own.
It is important that there should always be debate on such a matter It is important that we should have a clear expression of opinion. It is equally important that there should be no emotional atmosphere when we take our decision. It should be taken in cold blood. It is a matter of principle. I do not think that it is a case which should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, and, if there is a Division, I shall vote against the Motion.
It has been argued that some hon. Members are in a position to seek a remedy in the courts in cases of this kind, whereas other hon. Members are not. Again, that cannot be any guideline for our decision today. It is not a matter of protecting hon. Members. It is not a matter of social justice. It is not a matter of income levels and the ability to find the necessary money to fight in the courts. I speak without any concern for individual hon. Members. We must not burden our decision with matters that have nothing to do with it——

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend wants to provide work for lawyers.

Mr. Mendelson: They will not suspect me of that, if they know me.
Every hon. Member is attacked from time to time. It is essential that most attacks should not be dealt with under the rule of privilege. I believe that to be the case, and I hope that there is a Division so that we can express our opinions on the Motion to refer this case to the Committee.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sorry to have to delay the House a little longer, but it seems to me that we are here discussing a matter of principle which is extremely important.
Usually, I find myself in complete agreement on most questions with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). However, on this occasion he is putting forward a case which I find totally unacceptable. During the debate which took place in July, various points of view were put forward by my hon. Friend and others who supported the Committee's Report. I said at that time that if the Government intended to put forward proposals based upon all the recommendations in that Report, a number of hon. Members would find themselves opposed to some of them.
We have had some frank talking today, and I want to be equally frank. I do not happen to be a millionaire. In view of the way in which I handle my financial affairs, I never will be one. However, I tend to be a somewhat controversial person and, on occasions, it could be that certain Press barons would object most strongly to the policies which I pursue. Because I am not a millionaire, they might decide to launch a sustained campaign against me which, in turn, would be waged against my constituents. It is all very well to tell me that I can go to the courts, but I should not be in a position to employ the best legal advice in the country to advance my case. The Press barons would be, and as a result any contest between us would be somewhat unfair.
I want to be frank and open and honest about this matter. Under these circumstances, it is the duty and responsibility of the whole House to protect its Members—not only its rich but its poor—which means protecting their constituencies and constituents. Members of


Parliament hold special positions. Anyone who denies this denies the reality of the life that we live. We make speeches regularly. Not every person in this country is subjected to precisely the same type of pressures as those to which a Member of Parliament is subjected.
I hope that the House will agree that this matter should go before the Committee of Privileges. I am not saying that there should not be changes in the procedure. I read the Report very carefully. There is a good case for many changes in procedure. But let us take this specific case—because it is this case upon which we are being asked to decide. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell)—with whom I do not agree on many issues—has been the victim of a sustained campaign. I object very strongly to the fact that he has been placed in that position. I know that he is a rich man, and I know that he can fight these people in the courts on some of the things which have been said. But when his conduct as a Member of this House is brought into question it is our responsibility thoroughly to investigate the matter and to defend Members of the House.
I am a passionate believer in this House. I was not always. There was one time in my life when the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) were positively reformist in comparison to some of mine. But I realise that the essence of our democracy is the basis of our rights and privileges to speak up and act on behalf of our constituents. In my view, any attack upon that is an attack upon the rights of our people.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale not to push this matter to a vote. If there is a vote, however, I ask the House overwhelmingly to support my right hon. Friend.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: If it had not been for the intervention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) I would not have spoken, but I make no apology for rising in support of what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said about this matter. We must get this very clear. I believe that privilege was designed—the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael

Foot) will agree with me on this—to allow me, or him, or anybody else to put forward his political views. Of course, the House of Commons would fight like Kilkenny cats to prevent the hon. Member for Walton not being able to express his political views. But there is a division of opinion on this matter.
I would have thought that if the House, in its wisdom, made me Chairman of the Estimates Committee and the Press published material to the effect that the hon. Member for Ormskirk was a thoroughly inefficient member of the Estimates Committee it would probably be true, and fair comment. I do not think that it would be a breach of privilege. This is not stopping Members of Parliament from expressing their views. It is not stopping Members of Parliament sayings things that they could not say outside because it would be subject to libel. It is not stopping people espousing an unpopular cause.
This is a statement of fact. I believe that it is in this respect that we have fallen out in recent years on the question of privilege. We are extending the field of privilege to our own amour propre. It may be very nice for a Member of Parliament to feel that he can refer to the Committee of Privileges a matter in which he thinks that he has been victimised, but I do not think that the public want us to extend this field of privilege.
Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), I believe that privilege should be confined to the question of expressing views in a political context. When it is a question of dealing with facts that may be ascertained I feel that no breach of privilege is involved.

Mr. George Brown: As I see it, the issue here is an allegation that a Member of this House, by virtue of his office in this House, cooked the books; that the Treasury acquiesced and, indeed, made it possible for him to cook the books, and that the authorities of this House acquiesced and made it possible for him to cook the books. I ask the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) what bigger attack does he need to be made on the honour of this House for it to be a matter of privilege?

Sir D. Glover: I do not want to detain the House in this matter but if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Treasury is under attack, I would have thought that the right thing to do would be for the Treasury to carry out an inquiry to discover what has gone wrong. I do not think that it is a question of privilege. It is on this narrow difference that there is a division in the House on this matter. I shall not do so with any great conviction, but if there is a Division—I hope that there will not be—I shall come down on the same side as the hon. Member for Penistone.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL

Lords Amendents considered.

Clause 1

SUSPENSION OF REDISTRIBUTIONS TILL NEXT GENERAL REPORTS OF BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS, AND ACCELERATION OF THOSE REPORTS

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to "no" in line 6.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no word with either Front Bench, but it seems to me that these Amendments are all linked. If there were no opposition to doing so we might take them all together. I do not know what are the views of the two sides of the House.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I have had a word with the Home Secretary on this point. The first Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary, that the Lords Amendment be agreed with, is acceptable to us without any debate I think that the convenient course then would be to have a long debate on the rest of the Amendments, and perhaps a vote on each separately. I do not know whether that is to the convenience of the House or to the right lion. Gentleman.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes.

Mr. Speaker: That is agreed from the Government side, so we will take the first Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I do so for precisely opposite reasons to those for which their Lordships moved the Amendment, but as I propose to move on rapidly I shall not develop those reasons. I merely propose to agree with the Amendment, for reasons of


which their Lordships would thoroughly disapprove.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 1, line 7, after "Act" insert "in the present session of Parliament".

Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary will move disagreement with the Lords Amendment, and on that disagreement we shall debate all the Lords Amendments and the Government disagreements with them. That seems to be the will of the House.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain the Government's views on the whole of the Amendments, which merge into one general statement because they are all related to the same general proposition.
The House last debated the Bill on 15th July. Since then it has been to another place. The Bill that we have received back is entirely different from the one passed by the House on 15th July. That being so, and in view of the time that has elapsed, I had better explain afresh the Government's attitude on this matter. The reports of the four Boundary Commissions were submitted between April and June, and they provided for a radical alteration in constituency boundaries based—in accordance with the redistribution rules—on existing local government boundaries.
The Boundary Commissions did the job which Parliament gave them to do. They started work in February, 1965, getting on for five years ago. They started work before the Redcliffe-Maud Report had even been conceived, let alone born. That Committee was set up on 24th May, 1966, and the Boundary Commissions started their work in the absence of any knowledge that there was to be a review of the local government structure of this country. They are required to submit their periodical reports by November, 1969, under the 1944 Act, the 1947 Act, the consolidation Act of 1949, and the Amending Act of 1958. But none of those Acts contemplates the situation which would arise if the reports of the Commissions, which had been considered for

nearly four years, were due to be submitted at a time when drastic alterations of local government boundaries were in prospect. There is nothing in the Acts which deals with that situation.
The Government realised in 1966—three and a half years ago—the difficulties which could arise if the Boundary Commissions proceeded on the basis of the old boundaries, and produced their reports accordingly, at a time when we might be faced with yet another report from another Commission based on different boundaries and a different concept of local government, and so in 1966 the Government approached the Opposition and made certain suggestions to them about postponing the work of the Boundary Commission.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) continuously misunderstood me when I said that I was not wanting to bring this matter out, but it was brought out before, and I emphasise it again now because it is in the open. The Government asked the Opposition in 1966, long before anybody knew what were to be the results of these two reports, whether they thought it sensible to defer the work of the Boundary Commissions in the light of the fact that there would be substantial changes proposed by Redcliffe-Maud. That approach met with a negative reply.
I suppose it would have been open to the Government, even at that stage, to have gone ahead and said, "Very well, even though we will get no co-operation from the Opposition in this matter we propose to suspend the work of the Commissions". That is arguable, and perhaps in the light of what has happened the Government might have taken that decision then, but they did not. If the Opposition had been more accommodating in 1966, there could have been an agreed approach to this problem. The consequence of the Opposition's unwillingness to co-operate was that the Boundary Commissions went ahead then, and this was foreseen by the Government at that time.
The Government have had to give very careful consideration to the position which has arisen as a result of the coincidence in time of the publication of the Report of the Boundary Commission and the Redcliffe-Maud Report, because these


Reports, for parliamentary and local government boundaries, cut across each other.
The House has been given the facts of the situation in earlier debates, but at this important stage of the Bill it is right to give them again. Of the 630 constituencies in the United Kingdom, the Boundary Commissions have recommended changes in no fewer than 410 constituencies. No one can doubt the disturbance that will be caused by this rearrangement of constituencies. It will entail the severance of many ties, the need for reorganisation by election officials, and the need for fresh organisation by the political parties, and those who are in touch, as I know hon. Gentlemen opposite are with their party in London, just as others on this side of the House are in touch with the Labour Party in London, know the degree of disturbance that can be caused, and the uncertainty in this situation. No one can deny—if the argument is advanced I should not be willing to consider it—that there will be a great deal of disturbance in the reorganisation of 410 constituencies out of 630. There has never been anything like it. We have never had anything like such a big reorganisation as this one.
In accordance with the reorganisation rules, the recommendations of the Commission were based on existing local government boundaries, but what did things look like when the recommendations for constituencies were compared with the recommendations in the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the proposals under discussion for local government boundaries in Wales and England? It was found that 94 of the recommended constituencies would be divided between two or more of the main local authority units proposed by Redcliffe-Maud, and that many more of the constituencies recommended by the Boundary Commission would need consequential adjustment to accommodate the 94 constituencies entirely within the area of a proposed main authority.

Mr. Hogg: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but my attention was diverted as he spoke those last two sentences. I wonder whether he would be good enough to repeat them.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I was saying that of the 410 constituencies in which the Boun-

dary Commissioners propose a change, under Redcliffe-Maud 94 of them would be divided between two or more main local authority units, and I went on to say that once we divided those which straddled the main units it would follow that each of the neighbouring constituencies to those 94 would also have to be adjusted. In other words, there cannot be a straight bifurcation, because it does not fall out that way. We are talking about a large number of constituencies which will have to be readjusted if anything like Redcliffe-Maud is to go through.
In Wales, the effect would be that 19 of the 36 proposed constituencies, more than half, would contain a part of more than one proposed new county district, so according to their Lordships we are to do the job twice. As regards Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Bill originally introduced and passed by the House provided a deferred option so that the decision on implementing the 1969 Boundary Commission Reports could be taken by 31st March, 1970 in the light of the recommendations for local government reorganisation. Their Lordships have struck this out, and, therefore, we must again, in terms, suggest that it be put back so that the Bill appears as it was.
The Government have accepted the principle that a major reorganisation of local government is called for. The local government authorities accept that principle, too. They argue about what is right and wrong, and about Redcliffe-Maud. Like everyone else, I read the reports about the form that the major reshaping of local government should take, and as far as I can see there is no dispute that the pattern of local government needs a drastic and an early overhaul, and the word "early" is almost as important as the word "drastic".
I have yet to find a serious local authority representative who does not say to me privately, and I am sure is willing to say publicly, "Local government needs an overhaul, and it needs it quickly. Whatever is to be done, give us a reasonable period in which to make up our minds, but for heaven's sake then get on with it and put an end to the uncertainty". They say this for good local authority reasons, because they know very well that projects which ought to be undertaken are likely to be deferred or


held up because of uncertainty about the prospects of reform, who will pay for it, in which area it will be, and so on.
Therefore, there is at least agreement—I do not know whether any hon. Gentleman opposite will take exception to this—that the case is made out for drastic local government reform. The case is made out for an early conclusion on that, and for legislation following the discussions and negotiations which obviously must take place.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The Secretary of State said that local authorities and individual councillors are saying, "Give us a reasonable period". Does he think that the period which he has proposed in the Bill for the implementation of the changes is adequate in view of the increasing number of representations from local authorities and individual councillors that they are being hurried into making a decision?

Mr. Callaghan: I remain convinced that the period proposed is adequate. I will explain to the House later why I think so. I have been absolutely reinforced in my judgment in this matter as a result of what has happened and the representations which have been made during the last two months. When I set out the pattern I hope that I shall carry the Liberal Party with me.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend also reinforced in his view by the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) is supporting the Bill since he became Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development? Should not we in future perhaps speak, not of the conversion of Saul on the Road to Damascus, but of that of Benjamin on the road to No. 10 Downing Street?

Mr. Hogg: Save us from our friends.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend should not show quite so clearly his pain at being excluded from what was clearly his rightful place in the Government. I have no doubt that it will come in due course. He will deserve it, but he will not earn any commendations from me if he goes on making interventions like that: it does not make my job any easier.
Another major review of constituency boundaries will be necessary as soon as the local government boundaries themselves have been fixed. That is why the Government want to avoid a major upheaval of constituency boundaries now. That is the view which was endorsed by the House when it sent this Bill to the Lords on 15th July.
The purpose of the Amendments made by the Lords is to require action to implement the recommendations in the 1969 Report to be taken by 31st March, 1970. No action would be possible until next Session. They want to ensure that the Orders are laid by 31st March next. That is the sort of proposition which was rejected by this House when it previously debated the Bill.
Most of the time has been devoted to considering two different approaches. The point at issue is: do we have a radical alteration of constituency boundaries now and a further radical alteration in quite a short period of time ahead when the shape of the new local government boundaries can be seen, or do we keep to the existing constituency boundaries for the time being and have one major re-drawing of the parliamentary map when the local government reorganisation has been completed? That is the issue between the two Houses.
The Amendments we have received from the Lords adopt the first approach. They say, "Let us have a radical alteration now. Let us have a further alteration a short distance ahead". They are absolutely contrary to the decision of this House that we should keep the existing constituency boundaries outside of London until new local government boundaries have been settled.
It was said in another place that the effect of these Amendments was to afford time to the Government to think again. I have had a lot of time to think. I have done so. The Government's view, seen after the Summer Recess, is that the right course is to avoid an upheaval of constituency boundaries now to be followed by a second upheaval in a few years' time. The House firmly endorsed this view, and I ask it to do so again.
The Amendments made by the Lords would allow only one course of action, as I understand them—that is, that the Orders must be laid before 31st March, 1970. I have endeavoured to go part


of the way to meet the other place and, indeed, to meet the views which are expressed here. I say "part of the way" because the view was expressed that it would be possible for the Commission to carry on until, I think, 1979.

Sir David Renton: 1983.

Mr. Callaghan: That was the worst case. I do not think that anybody thought that. I think that the main opposition case was 1979. However, I will take 1983. It was suggested that it might be 1983 before we got the next report, because the Boundary Commission might not start until 1979. I resisted an earlier Amendment which was moved on those lines, and I can say that, in view of the allegations of my bad faith, this might be thought to be the line I would follow; so I therefore propose to compromise.
The compromise that I propose is quite simply this. This is why the Government have tabled to Lords Amendment No. 3 modifications of the Bill that was passed by this House. These modifications provide, in effect, for a new Clause 1. That new Clause will be divided into two Clauses. All the main provisions of Clause 1 as passed by the House last time are preserved—that is, first, the power to accelerate the next general review reports; secondly, the suspension of interim reports in respect of constituencies outside London; and, thirdly, the power to implement the Scottish and Northern Ireland Reports by the end of March, 1970.
There was no particular argument on principle about this, I think. Modifications are now proposed in the Amendments I have tabled so as to fix a latest date for reactivating a commission. That latest date is 31st March, 1972—so I have gone some way to meet their Lordships—if by that date the 1969 Report of any of the four Commissions has not been implemented.
The purpose of the Amendments is to meet the point which has been made, perhaps with some justification, that the Bill gave the Secretary of State a blank cheque in deciding when the Boundary Commissions should be reactivated, and there were suggestions that it would be many years before they were reactivated. These Amendments show quite clearly,

not only that this was not the Government's intention, but that the Government are binding themselves to reactivate the Commission at the latest by 31st March, 1972. It always has been the Government's intention that another general review of constituencies should be put in hand as soon as it is practicable to do so in the light of local government reorganisation.
The Government Amendments which I have tabled, and which I invite the House to agree to, bind us to do so. So it is not just now a question other than that it is our intention to reactivate the Commission. I am proposing that the Secretary of State should be bound by the Bill when enacted to do this.
One of the arguments that can be used against this is that the effect of inserting a terminal date for implementing the 1969 Reports could bring the alteration of constituencies nearer to the date of the alteration of local government boundaries and that we should end up with two upheavals of constituency boundaries even closer to one another than under their Lordships' Amendments. This is right, because I am binding myself to do one of two things—either to reactivate the Commission or, alternatively, to lay the 1969 Reports.
I do that because I am as confident as it is possible to be that we shall be able to reactivate that Commission before 31st March, 1972 and, therefore, will not get, as I see it, this overlap, or this coming closer together, of the two Reports. I appreciate that it is a possibility, but in view of the urgency with which it is necessary to tackle local government reform it is my very strong expectation that the Boundary Commissions will be able to be reactivated by 31st March, 1972 and, therefore, it would not be necessary to lay the Orders.
We have now had the advantage of the summer months in which to hear some of the views which are being expressed and the difficulties which are being put forward. We are now in the autumn of 1969. A White Paper will be produced within the next few months—it is not for me to say when, because that is a matter still to be decided. The Government are working towards legislation in respect of reorganisation of local government in the Session beginning in October,


1971—that is, during the 1971–72 Session.
So we have a period between now and the introduction of the Maud legislation of two years for the purpose of hearing difficulties, hearing what are the objections, working them out and preparing the legislation. Bless my soul, we half won the 1939–45 war in just over two years.

Sir Douglas Glover: We half lost it in two years, too.

Mr. Callaghan: I am speaking of the period after Alamein. It is stretching an argument too far to assume that in a period of two years it is impossible to hear what are the main objections to the structure of proposed local government, to formulate proposals, to draft the legislation, and then it has to go through the House.
That is why I am confident that by the winter of 1971 or the early part of 1972 the new shape of local government will be clear for me to be in a position to carry out my undertakings, which will be set out statutorily, to reactivate the Commissions. It will be quite possible to do this, and that is why I am ready to bind myself if we cannot get as far as that, although I am confident that we shall, to lay the Orders. But I am as certain as it is possible to be that the Commissions will be able to start work again by 31st March, 1972.
So this is not a valueless concession; it is very valuable; I am putting in a terminal date which I believe can be kept—and I go further and say that it will be kept—and by 31st March, 1972, I must lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council.

5.0 p.m.

Sir D. Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the view, put forward by Lady Sharp, that it would require all of three years to reach decisions on the Redcliffe-Maud Report, that is, for local authorities and the Government to do so, and then to draft the necessary legislation? If he accepts that view, is not his time scale out of phase?

Mr. Callaghan: I read those comments by Lady Sharp. I have great respect for Dame Evelyn Sharp. When she was at her Ministry, she would never let

the grass grow under her feet like that. She was a Permanent Secretary who really pushed things along. I can understand that, as she is now leading a rather more leisurely life, she may want to take more time; but I do not accept, and I do not think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept, that two and a half years is too short a period for the consideration of legislation for the reform of local government. That is the nub of the question, not what Lady Sharp may think, or what I may think, or what anyone else may think. Every hon. Member should answer this question for himself.
It is not as though local government reform has burst upon us out of the blue, or as though nobody has thought about it before. Local authorities and the Government and other interested bodies have been thinking about it for years. They have put proposals to the Maud Commission which has thought about them for years and we have been discussing it for several years already. We now propose another two and a half years for reflection and for the preparation of our proposals and for bringing them to the House. No one could argue that extensive period is unduly short or curtailed, unless he wants to do nothing.
I can understand the objection if it is purely a delaying action and I can understand it being made by anybody who wants local government reform to drift and local government itself to delay. He could argue that two and a half years is not enough time. But anyone who wants local government to be revived and strengthened and fortified must accept that if we are to do anything, an interval of two and a half years between publication of the Report and proposals for action is a reasonable period. That is why I am proposing to bind myself by 31st March, 1972, to ask Parliament for approval to reactivate the draft of the Order in Council.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about England and Wales, but he is proposing the same action for Scotland, too, if the option is not taken up by March, 1970. Is he aware that the Minister of State for the Scottish Office was reported last Saturday as having made a public statement in Scotland on Friday saying that the proposals of the Wheatley Commission, the Scottish


equivalent of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, were not expected to be implemented until about 1974?

Mr. Callaghan: There is a difference between implementation and legislation. The implementation follows. Between when the shadow authorities are elected and when they finally take over their duties there is a difference of some months if not a year or so. Indeed, I would expect the difference in England and Wales between the Royal Assent for the Bill being given and the appointed day to be getting on for two years. The dates are not consonant. The question is not when the Wheatley Commission recommendations will be implemented, but when it will be possible so clearly to see what will be the shape of the Scottish landscape that the Boundary Commission can get on with its new job. The two matters are not quite parallel.
I have just noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here; I hope that he agrees with what I am saying.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Entirely.

Mr. Callaghan: Thank you very much.

Mr. Ross: The Royal Commission on Scotland wanted two appointed days, one a year after the passing of the legislation.

Mr. Hogg: More muddle.

Mr. Callaghan: No muddle at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that it makes it much clearer. I am now fortified by the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland himself.
I am saying that I would ask Parliament for approval to reactivate the Commissions if it appeared to me that it would not, by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation, be premature to do so. That is the position. I must lay the Order before 31st March, 1972, and under that Order the Commissions would be required to submit another general review report within four years of the date on which the Report comes into operation. But the Order could provide for a reduction in the period of four years—the Commissions need not take four years—if the Secretary of State were satisfied, after consulting one of the Boundary Commissions, that they could

submit their reports within a shorter period from the coming into force of the Order.
I think that the House will agree from what I have said that the Government have gone a long way to meet some of the points that were made—not all—during the course of the Committee stages here and in another place. I have heard that this compromise which I have proposed will not be acceptable to another place. I hope that that is not so. When the Bill was considered in Committee here, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) moved an Amendment to have a terminal date at 1st May, 1972, for reactivating the Boundary Commissions. My Amendment improves slightly on what he suggested. Do not let us spurn it.
What I have suggested ought to be sufficient at any rate to persuade the right hon. and learned Member to walk into the Lobby with me tonight on this issue. [Interruption.] I am sorry to learn of the way in which the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is approaching this debate. I thought that he was open to persuasion and conviction in this matter, but now I find that he is not. I think that I have made out an overwhelming case and that is why I invite the House to accept the Amendments which the Government propose to Lords Amendment No. 3.
The other Amendments which the Government have suggested are for drafting purposes, or are consequential on our Amendments to Lords Amendment No. 3. The two main points are the restoration of Clauses 2 and 3 which the Lords Amendments delete. Clause 2 deals with constituencies in Greater London and Clause 3 with a few constituencies which have very large electorates. So far as I know, there is no proposal for a substantial alteration of local government boundaries in Greater London in the for-seeable future. I think that there is no difference between us about the view that constituency boundaries should be altered in Greater London now. I think that this is the view of both major parties. Certainly it was the view of the G.L.C., and I think it is also the view of the Liberal Party.
I have had many representations from party organisers on both sides about this


matter—I do not invite them, but I get them. Hon. Members might be interested in some of the letters which I have had, and I have no doubt that they would be interested to read some of the letters which I have had from my hon. Friends on this subject.

Mr. Hogg: And the letters to me.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps we could exchange correspondence.
Clause 2 would provide that, and I therefore propose to put it back, with the consent of the House, and to ask their Lordships to think again about this. It would enable the 1970 G.L.C. elections to be conducted on the basis of single-member electoral areas based on the individual constituencies. This would be a sensible thing to do and it is an arrangement which all sides of the House would like to see. It is, from this point of view, and the point of view of party organisation, most desirable that Clause 2 should become law at an early date so as to remove uncertainty surrounding this question.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I put a hypothetical question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will appreciate if he does not answer it for hypothetical reasons? If this does not become law and the Parliament Act procedure operates and the Bill becomes law on 25th July, 1970, what is the position of the London constituencies if there is an election between 25th July, 1970, and 25th February, 1971? Will they fight on the existing boundaries or the new boundaries, in which case will all the town clerks have to do a scissors and paste job on the new registers?

Mr. Callaghan: I understood the hon. Gentleman's question when he began it, but I have become a little confused. I will seek guidance and arrange for it to be answered later. I will indicate a little later what my attitude will be if their Lordships decide that they could not accept this compromise, assuming the House accepts it.
If their Lordships take out this Clause they will he denying London an opportunity that all parties want, and therefore, they should not do this. That means accepting the compromise Amendments

in the way in which they have been put forward.
The other main point is Clause 3, making provision for the division of abnormally large constituencies. It has been the view of the Government that it would be right to go some way if possible towards removing under-representation in the very large constituencies remaining outside of Greater London. I must say once again to the House, and through it to the other place, that if the Boundary Commission for England is to get on with the job of reviewing these constituencies then the passage of this Bill should be delayed no longer. We cannot have it hanging around for too long in this state of uncertainty.

Mr. Peter Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman says that Clause 2 should be kept within the Bill because London was not affected by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. In Clause 3 some of the constituencies are very much affected by these proposals. What has he got to say about that?

Mr. Callaghan: What I have got to say about that is that it is not a perfect world and we have to do our best to meet objections made about these very large constituencies.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The right hon. Gentleman says that if another place rejects the Bill London will be denied the redistribution which he says is generally acceptable to the parties. If another place were to reject this Bill the right hon. Gentleman's powers under the 1949 Act would surely remain? Is there anything to prevent him from laying an Order in respect of London?

Mr. Callaghan: There is nothing to prevent me laying such an Order. I would be interested to hear what would be the reaction of the Opposition to that proposition and whether they thought they could carry their majority in another place with them if they wanted to see it done in that way. I would be open to this, but whatever has to be done must be done quickly. We must allow these people to get on with their electoral arrangements. I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says and will be glad to hear further views.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there may be some objection from this side of the House to such a procedure as the right hon. Gentleman has advocated?

Mr. Callaghan: I can only repeat that this is not a perfect world. I cannot satisfy every hon. Member in this respect. I am sorry about my hon. Friend. He can no doubt put his point of view through the usual channels.
In putting these Amendments forward we have shown that we are prepared to take account of the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite about the length of time they think may elapse, given bad faith on the part of the Government, before the next review of the Boundary Commissions. The Amendments are realistic. We intend to work towards introducing legislation to reform the structure in 1971–72 and I express the earnest hope that these Amendments will be accepted in another place. The Bill, as it would emerge, would enable the next parliamentary and local government elections in Greater London to be held on the revised constituencies and would attend to the problem of constituencies with abnormally large electorates.
In view of the reports I have heard about the Amendments in the debates held in that bracing seaside resort recently, when views were expressed by one member of another place who holds a distinguished position, I ought to explain now what I propose to do if their Lordships do not accept the common sense of the situation and oppose the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Let us imagine that they oppose the Bill—they will have the opportunity of passing or rejecting it on Thursday. I shall then lay before Parliament draft Orders relating to the recommendation of the 1969 Reports in the manner provided by Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act. Whether they should be laid next week or when the House resumes would be a matter for parliamentary convenience, which could no doubt be discussed. I should then, to bring the matter to a conclusion and avoid uncertainty, lay those Orders. That is what I propose to do.
I hope that no one will assume that the Government are withdrawing from the position in relation to these Reports

which has been established and passed by this House. I should not be able to advise the House to approve the Orders. [An HON. MEMBER: "None of them?"] None of them, because it is the view of the Government that what we are proposing to do in seeking to remedy the London position is right because the boundaries are fixed. We cannot do that unless we can also proceed to some of the other constituences, the larger constituencies. The two go together and that is why I am interested to hear the point put forward by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I do not know whether he was expressing support for that.
If the House were to decide that it did not wish to approve the Orders we are putting forward then we shall be back in the position where we were before the Boundary Commission started work, that is to say, we should be fighting an election on the basis of the 1966 boundaries, on which we were all elected. We should be in exactly the same position again. To try to meet the real position which would arise as to when the Boundary Commission would be reactivated, I would need a little time to consider what legislation to bring forward. I think a proposition very similar to the one I am putting in the Bill, namely, 1972, or something a little earlier should be the latest date on which the Boundary Commission should be reactivated and asked to start again. But if their Lordships are not willing to accept what I am putting forward, then as a matter of convenience, we ought to ask the Boundary Commission to start afresh and to go forward with our electoral arrangements, to the great convenience of all parties, who will know exactly where they stand as from the date on which those orders are laid and rejected. We will all be able to go forward on that basis, with everyone knowing where they are.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Callaghan: I did not know that this would arouse so much interest. What I am hoping is that their Lordships will see the virtues in the proposals I am making and will decide that of the alternatives I am putting forward to them it would be much more sensible to fight the next election by breaking up these


large constituencies and reorganising London.
I have now finished. It will be for hon. Gentlemen to make their points during the course of the debate. But I thought that I should make absolutely clear what will be the path of the Government if their Lordships cannot accept the compromise I have put forward. I shall lay the Orders before the House at an early opportunity.

Mr. Hogg: After the agape, or love-feast, in which the Home Secretary and I indulged, I hope to our mutual pleasure, on a great theme yesterday, we must return to the harsh realities of married life. It is my duty, as his shadow, or, I might claim in this connection, his better half, to read the right hon. Gentleman a curtain lecture of the utmost harshness.
What emerges from the Secretary of State's quite extraordinary speech, in simple terms, is this. Having decided originally to cheat at the next election, and then to take a blank cheque to cheat indefinitely thereafter, he now proposes a compromise which will allow him to cheat at the next election but not to take the blank cheque. This is, in one sense, a substantial advance on his previous position; but we do not want to be cheated at all.
Perhaps the most extraordinary part of the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary speech was the announcement with which he concluded, which was that, having failed in his legal duty up to the present, if he cannot get what he wants today he will try to discharge it by laying a number of Orders which he will then gerrymander this House into rejecting. This is the extreme limit of Alice in Wonderland political dishonesty.
The right hon. Gentleman started his speech with a kind of Second Reading address. I do not complain of that, although I do not propose entirely to follow it. I am bound to say that I do not accept the account of the facts either as substantially correct or as constituting the smallest justification for what is now proposed or what was proposed in the first place. We are now, in 1969, in the possession of constituency boundaries which are hopelessly distorted and out of date and, therefore, quite undemocratic, because for various reasons for

which I reproach nobody the Boundary Commission, in leaving its Report until 1969, allowed the maximum time permitted by Statue to elapse before its Report was available. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not quite."] Very nearly the maximum time. There were a few weeks or perhaps months—weeks rather than months, to coin a phrase—which the Commission still had available to it. The result was that 410 changes were proposed in one of the Reports.
The Secretary of State seemed to think that that put him in a white sheet. But all that he does is to establish the extremely undemocratic nature of the present constituencies. We shall not give the details now because we gave them all before. There are some absurdly large and some ridiculously tiny. But that is the constituency upon which the next General Election will be fought unless a change is made. We ventured to point out, rather coyly, that the bulk of informed opinion is that that will give the Labour Party, on the basis of no swing at all, a bonus of 15 seats, plus or minus a few. We say that that is cheating. This is the background to the matter.
The Government then proceeded to steamroller the Bill through this House in such a way as to avoid a Report stage and deliberately to refuse any kind of Amendment in Committee. When they reached the other place they found that they had antagonised almost every part of the spectrum of political opinion except the indoctrinated members of the Labour Party. And even one of them, the Bishop of Southwark, betrayed them in their moment of need. To pair with the Bishop of Southwark they have now recruited the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) very unkindly reminded the right hon. Gentleman in his speech.
The Government had against them a galaxy of talent, in addition to the Conservative Party, which would ensure the defeat of any Measure in any second Chamber, however constituted. They had the only two bishops present, the only two scientists, Lords Penney and Todd, the Chairman of their own Commission on the Constitution, Lord Crowther, a member of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission in Baroness Sharpe,


the Chairman of the British Travel Association, whom they had appointed, and two lawyers, Lord Shawcross, their former Attorney-General, and Lord Tangley, who has been repeatedly appointed to independent positions, seven heads of Government Departments, civil and foreign affairs, and the entire Liberal Party.
If the Labour Party really thinks that it can get away with that sort of thing——

Mr. Michael Foot: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this merely illustrates the scandalous generosity with which the Prime Minister has distributed peerages?

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the noble Lords in question will note the view which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) takes of the motives inspiring their appointments.
So far as I know, no respectable strand of public opinion accepted the Bill as originally proposed. We are now faced with a totally new Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, shrouding the real intentions of the matter in an impenetrable fog of special pleading, comes forward, with all the skill and mastery of the parliamentary draftsmen behind him, and, under the guise of putting in Amendments to the Lords' Amendments rather than rejecting them, presents a totally new Bill, which merely goes to illustrate the extreme parliamentary ineptitude—I must not use the word "nincompoop" because it caused so much offence before—with which they forced the first Bill through without Amendment of any kind.
It is not for me, but for the Chair and the Table, to say whether it is an acceptable constitutional device to introduce a totally new Bill under the guise of Amendments to the Lords' Amendments. At any rate, I should have said that, as a matter of policy, it was highly undesirable and, viewed as a compromise imposed upon the parties in this House opposed to the Government, it is wholly unacceptable for the reasons I have given.
The point which emerges from the Secretary of State's speech is that, in its death agony, the Labour Party is determined to cheat at the next election at whatever cost. This is something to which I cannot give my approval.
The Amendments are of such a character that they deserve a certain amount of scrutiny. The original view was that, behind the mask with which the Government tried to pursue their real intentions, it was a matter of extreme administrative inconvenience to put into effect the 1969 proposals because of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the analogous Commissions on other parts of the United Kingdom. It was so inconvenient that the Government had to defy constitutional convention and antagonise every other strand of political opinion. That was their view. To that they originally adhered.
5.30 p.m.
Let us look at the Home Secretary's new timetable compared with the timetable which would have proceeded had he obeyed the law in the first place. If the right hon. Gentleman had obeyed the law in the first place, he would have laid the Commission Reports in April and they would now, I suppose, with the aid of the Government majority, be on the way to becoming law and we should be fighting the next General Election, which is now rumoured to be as early as the coming November, on the new constituencies. At any rate, that is what we should be fighting either as early as November or whatever is the latest moment in 1971 when the Government can cling on to office.
If the right hon. Gentleman had gone ahead with that timetable, he would, so he says, have come to his decisions, or the Conservative successor to the right hon. Gentleman would have come to his decisions, about Redcliffe-Maud and all that, if we followed the right hon. Gentleman's timetable—which, I think, would be on the optimistic side, but I am giving him the credit for every point I can—by the beginning of the Session of 1971. As the Home Secretary rightly says, however, the decision to legislate, the actual passage of the legislation through Parliament and its subsequent implementation on the ground are very different things.
Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman is right and that the beginning of the Session of 1971 would be the earliest conceivable date at which a. Government, his or ours, would announce their decision, I imagine that it would not become law much before the summer or spring


of 1972 and we would then have to reconstitute the structure of local authorities. If our experience of London government, which was a much smaller operation, is any guide, we would then have a period in which the old local authorities were still in office and side by side with them would be the local authorities designate riding in parallel—as was the case in London government, and I expect that that would happen again—before they actually assume their duties.
After that, there is still an indeterminate time before which the next General Election would be held on the basis of the new constituency boundaries. The Home Secretary is saying that that presents such a clash of dates as to be wholly and adminstratively intolerable. One has only to spell it out to see that that is complete rubbish.
That timetable allows a gap between the laying and implementation in 1969 of the 1969 Reports and the actual implementation of the new local government boundaries that is, I calculate, about five years. Let us compare that timetable with what is proposed in the Amendments.
In the proposed Amendments, the Government give themselves three possible options. The first, which relates to Northern Ireland and Scotland alone, is to implement the 1969 boundaries if the proposed changes are not sufficiently serious to make the 1969 Boundary Commissions obsolete or out of date. The second option, which is parallel to that in relation to England and Wales, is to implement the 1969 Boundary Commission's Report if the delay in local government reorganisation and the consequent reactivation of the Boundary Commission renders further delay intolerable.
Both of the first options, therefore, consist in implementing the existing Boundary Commission's Reports, which the Government are refusing to implement as of now—exactly the same without any substantial difference. In other words, instead of getting nice, new, up-to-date boundaries when they are wanted in 1969, we are to have them, under those options, when they are already getting rather long in the tooth.
What is exactly the advantage of that? The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us. He seems to have a sort of passionate love or desire, an erotic obsession with boundaries which are already archaic. He wants them so much that he is prepared to wait until 1970 or thereabouts—1971, I suppose—to get the 1969 boundaries carried through. That is one option.
The other option is even more remarkable because it is, at the latest by 1972, to reactivate the Boundary Commission for a new review. There is a time limit on that, which means that the Boundary Commission, reactivated, must report by 1976; and as the Home Secretary piously hoped, it might report earlier. The Gilbertian situation then is that it will report at precisely the time when the country is convulsed with the very local government changes which, if the right hon. Gentleman's calendar is anything like correct, apparently rendered the whole exercise necessary in the first place. In other words, if the right hon. Gentleman takes his first option, he will be doing two years late what he ought to have done now. If he takes the second option, he will be bringing about the exact situation which the whole exercise was designed to avoid.
At the end of the day we get one fact only, and that is that the Government are determined to cheat at all costs. I hope that the country will realise it and I hope it will realise, if there is a challenge between the two Houses, what has been going on. I say frankly to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to carry conviction in the advice which he gives to other parts of the United Kingdom not to gerrymander boundaries, he had better look into his own conscience first.

Mr. F. Blackburn: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Maryiebone (Mr. Hogg) so much enjoys his speeches that he inspires a similar reaction in those who listen to him. These Lords Amendments, covering the whole of the Bill, have given rise again today to the same debate we had before. We are going over the whole gamut of the argument. It is not my purpose to go over it.
I shall not take long, but I want to call the attention of the House to what must already be apparent to many hon. Members: that is, that according to the


rules of this House the Lords Amendments are out of order. Unfortunately we cannot do anything about it. Unfortunately we have no control over the other place, nor can we tell it that it has to pass Amendments which are in order. Nor can we refuse to discuss them merely because they are out of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the game away when he said these Lords Amendments produced an entirely new Bill.
Those who study their Erskine May will remember that it contains a section which deals with Amendments which are inadmissible. If hon. Members turn to page 550 of Erskine May they will see that it states that any Amendment which is a negative or is directly contrary to the principle which was accepted on Second Reading is out of order. Every hon. Member will agree with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that the Bill which has come back to us from the other place is an entirely new Bill. It does not follow the principle which was agreed to by this House on Second Reading. In fact, it does not even follow the principle accepted by the other place on Second Reading, because they passed it.
I raise this matter for two reasons. First, since this is not the first occasion in the last few years when the House has taken up time discussing Amendments which are out of order according to our rules, the next time that we have a Bill to deal with the relationship between the Commons and the Lords this is something which should be dealt with. My second reason is to say to the Opposition that it will not be very sensible to vote for Amendments which, according to the rules of this House, are out of order.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): It is a remarkable proposition which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has just put to us, that any ruling given by him or by this House as to the regularity of proceedings in another place should be even considered. Indeed, as the hon. Member raised substantially a point of order in another place, I was about, respectfully, to invite your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what I understand to be the rules of order in this House, that one may not criticise the

proceedings in another place, which of course is precisely the point—indeed, the only point—which the hon. Member was making.

Sir D. Renton: My right hon. Friend will, of course, appreciate that the Lords, far from being out of order in what they did, would have been completely in order in rejecting the Bill altogether, which they decided not to do.

Mr. Blackburn: I think that both right hon. Gentlemen have misunderstood me. I did not criticise the other place. I said that we had no control whatever over the Amendments which they passed there. They are entitled to pass any Amendment they like. All I said was that, according to the rules of this House, when those Amendments come here, they are out of order according to our rules——

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose——

Mr. Blackburn: May I just add that before I made that statement I took advice also on the subject?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know to what extent the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful. He accepts that he and this House have no right whatever to interfere in the procedure of another place. Indeed, it is laid down somewhere in Erskine May that each House is the master of its own procedure. Unless he is arguing that we should not discuss the matter at all, because what was done in the Lords would be out of order in the Commons, he has taken up the time of this House on an important occasion with a wholly frivolous and irrelevant intervention.
This is an extremely important occasion, made all the more so by the quite astonishing announcement which the Home Secretary made a few moments go. I have never heard—I do not think that any hon. Member has ever heard—a Minister make from that Box a comparable statement. It was that he was going to go through the form of carrying out what I now understand he admits to be his statutory duty to lay these Orders, but is going to render the whole procedure nugatory and a sharn by arranging with the Patronage Secretary to have voted down the Orders which he himself, in the discharge of his Ministerial duties, has laid before Parliament.
This is not just one of those strange points of quasi-order which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred to. This is a point which goes to the whole substance of the relationship between Ministers and this House and between Ministers and the law of the land. We have a Minister of the Crown, indeed the most senior Secretary of State—indeed, to make it the more deplorable, the Minister above all Ministers who is responsible for securing a punctilious regard for law and order—coming forward with the bland statement—made without any appearance of shame—that he proposes to make a farce of these whole constitutional proceedings and prostitute them in the interests of the Labour Party. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that kind of thing will intimidate another place, I can only say that I know of no second chamber in the world which would allow a statement by a Minister that he was not going to do his duty to cause that second chamber to decide not to do its duty.
I do not want, any more than the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, to go over the arguments which put forward on the last occasion, but I should like to comment on what the Home Secretary described as his "compromise". It is, of course, no compromise. Indeed, it is a proposal which shows up even more clearly the unreality of the arguments originally adduced in support of the Bill, because, if it did anything if it went into law, it would make as near as may be mathematically certain that there would be two redistributions in reasonably swift succession.
It is not a compromise at all. The purpose of this Bill is to make sure that the next General Election is fought on the present distribution of seats. That is the purpose of this Bill, and the fact that, under the guise of a compromise, it also makes it certain that the next one after that would be fought similarly is no doubt an additional precaution. This is the purpose of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman's so-called compromise does not touch this. He is determined to fight the next Election in a position in which, according to an independent and impartial Boundaries Commission, the majority of constituencies in this country—410 of them, he quoted—are either too big or

too small, or in some way not distributed as, in the judgment of the Boundaries Commission, they should be.
That is the purpose of the Bill, that we should fight the next General Election on the basis of a vote in certain constituencies having the same share in voting in a Member of this House as five or six votes have in other constituencies. My right hon. and learned Friend asked who the Home Secretary is to lecture the Government of Northern Ireland about gerrymandering and about the municipal boundaries of Londonderry when he comes forward with special legislation which he knows will have the effect of providing that, in certain constituencies in the United Kingdom, one man's vote would be the equivalent of those of five or six men in another constituency. Where is "One man, one vote" there, when it is "One man, five or six votes" if he happens to be in a constituency likely to return a Labour Member of Parliament?
This is the purpose of this Bill, and this is no compromise which is put forward. The right hon. Gentleman is determined, either by this Bill or, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, by cheating over the Orders which it is his duty to lay, to secure that——

Mr. Roebuck: Disgraceful!

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is disgraceful: I agree with the hon. Member. It is indeed disgraceful. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for putting that adjective into my mouth, or I might have used a harsher one.

Mr. Roebuck: The right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting me, as much as he was misrepresenting my right hon. Friend. I used the word "disgraceful" because I regard the right hon. Gentleman's exaggeration as a terminological inexactitude in regard to what is taking place. It was absolutely disgraceful.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I am always prepared to accept his help, particularly in view of his known highly articulate vocabulary. I am delighted that one who no doubt regards himself as a possible beneficiary of the Home Secretary's action should rise with such loyalty to his right hon. Friend's defence.
The Home Secretary knows perfectly well what he is doing. He knows what


was the reaction in the House when the Bill went through the House—that we in this country, the homeland of Parliamentary democracy, are not only throwing overboard all the carefully calculated and impartial machinery of the Boundary Commission, but are being blatantly being faced with legislation designed to change that machinery in the interests of the Government of the day. The second Chamber exists to give protection from that kind of thing to our constituents and to the country.
In his anxiety about the attitude of another place, the Home Secretary tried to suggest that if they decided to reject the Bill—as I personally hope that they will, in their wisdom, do—they would be preventing the citizens of London from having the benefits of the thoughts and plans of the Boundary Commission and of voting on the next occasion after a proper and fairly conceived redistribution. But when I intervened the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that that was a quite unfair attempt to put responsibility on another place because—I see the Minister of State nodding his head, I hope in assent. If this Bill is rejected and the 1949 Act remains, the right hon. Gentleman could lay an Order bringing about the redistribution in London at any moment, and provided that on this occasion he was prepared to ask the Chief Whip to organise votes in support of it, he could carry such an Order.
Whether that would be a sensible thing to do, with the problems which would be created on the periphery of London, is another matter. The Bill as introduced went to extraordinary gymnastics and gyrations to deal with the problems of redistributing in London and not redistributing in the rest of the country. The Bill in its original form created a constituency of under 40,000 electors somewhere on the edge of London and Hertfordshire. These are very serious problems which arise from the Home Secretary's own action.
But the point of my intervention and the point which should be made clear to the people of London is that whatever action is taken by another place, it is open to the Government, if they so wish, under the existing law and under their existing powers, to bring about that redistribution in London as it is in their power to bring it about in any other part

of the United Kingdom. It was therefore very unfair of the Home Secretary to try to take advantage of the complexity of these matters to suggest that another place would be taking responsibilities of this kind which are, in fact, the responsibilities of the right hon. Gentleman.
More than once in these debates I have put to the House the view which I hold, if the House will allow me to say so, with passion—the view that a terrible wrong is being done to our Parliamentary democracy. I am very glad indeed that, as a result of perhaps some unexpected support, there still exists at the other end of the corridor another Chamber with teeth. I hope that it will bite.

Mr. Roebuck: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is as reckless with his facts as he is with the charges which he slings out. He accused my right lion. Friend of cheating.

Sir D. Glover: My right hon. Friend was very moderate.

Mr. Roebuck: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "cheating". No doubt the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) will add to that. We know his capacity in that regard.
But the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames went on to say that I gave my support of the Bill because I thought that I would benefit from its consequences. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The Boundary Commission have decided to make no changes in my constituency.
Why is that? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. If he had done his homework he would have found that the Boundary Commission decided to make no change in the boundaries of the Harrow, East constituency with South-East Hertfordshire on the ground that the constituency boundaries should not be changed in anticipation of any changes in the local government boundary. What my right hon. Friend is suggesting is that there should be no changes in anticipation of the Redeliffe-Maud Report.
There is, therefore, not much substance in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I hope that on reflection he will want to reconsider these quite outrageous and reckless charges of dishonesty which he


has made against my right hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I suggested to the hon. Member that he might be a beneficiary of his right hon. Friend's activities for the most basic of all reasons—that they are intended to keep the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, and the hon. Member indicated earlier that he thought that that would be an agreeable state of affairs, as if he hoped that he might move a little to his left.

Mr. Roebuck: As the debate continues the right hon. Gentleman assumes more and more the shape of a twisted rubber corkscrew. He shifts from one stratagem to another.
There is another reason why I support my right hon. Friend in rejecting the proposal of another place. I consider it singularly inappropriate and an act of gross impertinence by another place to seek to interfere in the arrangements for the representation of the people.
Since when has the other place conceived this passionate desire to see that the people are properly represented? The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames must know from history that the other place nearly drove the nation to revolution twice because it resisted changes in Reform Acts to allow the people to be represented. I consider it to be most inappropriate that the other place should poke their noses into affairs of this nature. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must be hard up if they believe that the people down the corridor, most of whom I understand wear National Health Service dentures, have very sharp teeth with which they will look after those commoners who have the right to elect Members to this House.
No hon. Member opposite has made out a proper case. The right hon. Gentleman, who is leading counsel on these matters when there is mud slinging to be done, has got hold of totally incorrect information. When this is pointed out he moves on to some other argument.
There is no substance whatever in the charges which the Opposition have levelled against us and they should be ignored or, if not ignored, treated with contempt.

6.0 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: After the speech of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), I will try to lower the temperature. We have had only two speeches so far in the debate from hon. Members opposite, apart from Front Bench speeches, and, with great respect to both hon. Members, it would have been better if neither had been made, because they did not add to the debate.
This is one of the most important debates that the House has had for a very long time, and it is a great pity that there are not more hon. Members present on both sides of the House. We are debating freedom, whether we like it or not. That is the main issue of the debate.
I will be frank with right hon. and hon. Members opposite: up to the time he introduced the Bill, the Home Secretary is the Minister who gave me the greatest confidence. I had a good deal of regard for the right hon. Gentleman. Even when he introduced this Measure I thought that it was only a question of him being mistaken. However, it has been made clear today that the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps the most squalid member of a squalid Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that we are really debating whether it is proper for the electorate to be upheaved twice within a short period of time on the basis of an arrangement which was made in 1949 and which we are perfectly entitled to change, if we so wish, in the interests of the electorate?

Sir D. Glover: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to make that point because his remarks have not added to the discussion. I said that this was a squalid business, and so it is.
Let us consider some of the facts which the Home Secretary tried to adduce. First, he objected to the changes taking place because 410 constituencies would be affected. This means that the last redistribution occurred so long ago that two-thirds of the nation's constituencies need major revision now. That must happen now and not in five or six years' time. If we delay now it is probable that the


whole 630 constituencies will need revising in five or six years' time.
The right hon. Gentleman has a statutory duty to keep the constituencies in balance and to carry out the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions—not just those recommendations which he wishes to carry out but all of them. To say that a greater number of constituencies would be affected and that that is a reason for inaction is to stand the argument on its head.
Another squalid reason why the Home Secretary's Amendments are wrong is because they are designed to make the public say "What a nice, reasonable, cooperative gentleman he is". Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that even with the Amendments the Home Secretary will obtain his major objective, which is that no boundary changes should occur before the next General Election. The right hon. Gentleman does not care what happens after that. He is ensuring that there will be no boundary change before then because he, the Prime Minister and the Labour Party know that to leave the situation as it is is to their electoral benefit.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has no authority for saying that.

Sir D. Glover: We do not live in a vacuum. People have been discussing this matter, particularly in the corridors of Parliament, for months. Hon. Members have been considering what would occur if these changes took place, and what would be the result of no changes being made. This is common knowledge within the walls of the Palace of Westminster, so let us get rid of this business of it being difficult to prove what I am saying. We politicians are good at assessing our electoral chances and it is the general view of Parliament that what is proposed will be to the advantage of the Labour Party. That is the basic reason for the Bill.
The Home Secretary continues to argue that he might introduce these changes in 1972, but what if he is wrong over local government reform? I have said on previous occasions—I will not weary the House by repeating my arguments—that I believe the right hon. Gentleman to be grossly wrong over local government reform. The Government, if

they had a majority, could steamroller local government reform through Parliament, but I am sure than that is not the intention of either party.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite will be aware of the discussion that has been going on over this subject. Some people may be hostile to change at first, but as the discussion of local government reform continues for perhaps 18 months, they realise that some change is necessary. The flint and steel of political argument may persuade people in local government to finally reach a collective view. But that may take a considerable amount of discussion and may not occur in, say, six to 12 months. I therefore do not believe that the Home Secretary will be able to produce a suitable Bill by 1972.
Nobody knows the amount of controversy that local government reform may arouse in the country. At present the subject may seem somewhat dull, but hon. Members know how a matter can suddenly become a great political issue. Without wishing to decry hon. Gentlemen opposite, they must appreciate that, on a controversial issue affecting local government throughout the country, it is not proper to introduce a Measure in the last year of a Parliament. One cannot be certain how long the necessary negotiations on local government may take, and for all one knows—this is a possibility despite the Home Secretary saying that the Bill we are discussing must become law first—we may be dealing with the matter after 1975.
In the meantime, the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to keep the constituencies in order and, therefore, to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. If there is a possibility that we will be arguing this matter at the time of the next election but one, with the result that the constituencies will be 20 years out of date, the Home Secretary must carry out his statutory responsibilities now., because he is lowering the prestige of the House and the character of Parliament by not carrying them out.
The Home Secretary's arguments are only suppositions of what may happen. The facts are that 410 constituencies need reforming now and that the right hon. Gentleman has a statutory duty to implement the proposals of the Boundary Commission now. Those are the facts. The


remainder is supposition. The right hon. Gentleman must not pour shame and degradation on the proceedings of Parliament—[Interruption.]—and I am not exaggerating. His remarks were, to me, the worst statement I have heard from the Dispatch Box opposite since I came to this place. The right hon. Gentleman merely made some comments and told us that we could send the Bill to the other place and that the Lords could carry out their constitutional duty.

Mr. Roebuck: Bah!

Sir D. Glover: Is the hon. Gentleman ill?
The other place has delaying powers, given to it by the Labour Party. [Interruption.] After all, a Measure to alter the powers of the Lords was dropped not long ago, and that must mean that the Government considered the delaying powers of another place to represent a proper and justified part of the constitution. The other place would therefore be doing less than its constitutional duty if it felt that something needed doing to the Bill but did not do it.
This is where the disgrace to the House comes in. The Home Secretary says: "You can do all that. Its members may carry out their rôle in the second Chamber with the powers my party gave them, but even if they do I shall circumvent the whole constitutional process. I shall then lay the Orders that I have a statutory duty to lay, but I shall then tell the Patronage Secretary to herd these people into the Lobby in order to vote against them."
This Bill is a negation of all that has been built up for over 700 years. Hon. Members should remember that this House had not much power at the time of Magna Carta. One of the important matters of freedom in our history was organised far more by the barons than by the commoners, and those in another place still have the duty and the responsibility to protect the freedom of these people. But it is the people's freedom that is being eroded by this Bill.
As has been said, one man's vote in one constituency is worth five men's votes in another. Is not this gerrymandering of the worst order, and was not the Boundary Commission set up to avoid

that state of things? The Home Secretary has now left the Chamber, I believe because he is ashamed to be amongst us. He says: "When all this process has been gone through I shall circumvent and override the real designs of the parliamentary system". I believe that he should be impeached.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Some years ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) wrote an interesting little book called "The Case for Conservatism". I keep a copy of it on my bookshelves lest on any occasion I should wish to reinforce my conviction of the weakness of that case. I have not had occasion to do so recently, but in it and in evaluating the speeches made this afternoon from the benches opposite it is worth while recognising that there breathes through them all a deep conviction, which is widely held in the Conservative Party, that their real place, and their only place, is on this side of the House. This is what they firmly and basically believe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have their approbation. The point is that the Conservative Party believes that the whole process of democracy is designed for the retention of that situation and that anything that does not lead to it is worthy of words such as "cheating" or other epithets that come to their tongues.
The fact is that they are the only party which has ruled in this country against the wishes of the majority of the people—[Interruption.]—in the sense that immediately after the 1951 election, having a minority of the popular vote, they nevertheless assumed Government——

Mr. Lubbock: What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true. In fact, no Government since the war have had a majority of the votes.

Mr. Jenkins: I hear the hon. Gentleman, but this is not the case. The hon. Member well knows the point I am making, which is that the majority of the votes were not in favour of the party which assumed Government. This point has not been given sufficient weight in this debate.
It is the case that there is an ingrained advantage to the Conservative Party. If we have a fair seat distribution, the consequence, owing to the distribution of


political opinion, is that there is unfairness in the popular vote. This is particularly true of the Liberal Party. That party suffers because to a considerable extent reliance on seat distribution negates the popular vote. This whole debate has ignored this point, and the Boundary Commission has not given it sufficient weight.
What happens under our system is that the consequence of a redistribution is to make the popular vote less important——

Mr. Keith Speed: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Boundary Commission was working under rules laid down by the 1949 Act, which was introduced by a Labour Government?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: And what members of the party opposite are saying is that the 1949 Act should be sacred in perpetuity, and that the Boundary Commission's recommendations should be introduced. They also say that if in another place the proposals of this House are overthrown we are not entitled to question it. I do not believe that this proposition can be entertained.
It has been suggested that in carrying out his suggestions my right hon. Friend is acting in some way which is unfair; that he is cheating, and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can sustain that proposition only on the basis that whatever happens in another place and the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are both absolutely sacrosanct. The point that is overlooked is that it is this House, and no other place, which makes the final decision.
That is something that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accent. The charges that have been levelled and the strength of the language that has been used by hon. Members opposite are tenable only and can be understood only on the basis that they believe that the Conservative Party has a sacred right to rule, and to rule in perpetuity. That we on this side cannot be expected to accept and will not accept.

Mr. Lubbock: The point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) that the other place should not interfere in any way with matters concerning elections

and the disposition of constituency boundaries is not valid. In other respects we have denied the other place the power to intervene in decisions made by this House, particularly financial decisions, and that has been the position for a long time, but I do not think that it has ever been suggested that matters concerning the redistribution of seats should not go through both Houses of Parliament. That, until we decide otherwise, is the position we face. Those in another place have given us a second chance to look at the proposals in the Bill, and have made their own suggestions which we are entitled to consider on their own merits.
The other theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that there are defects in our electoral system, and that, of course, I cannot dispute. I agree entirely with what he said. It is true that in 1951 the Conservatives were returned to power with fewer votes than the Labour Party had, but it is also true to say, as I have already said in an intervention, that ever since the war, and even further back than that, the party that has assumed Government has never once had a majority of the people's votes. Nothing we do with constituency boundaries will put that right, because it is a fundamental defect of our system. As long as we have single-member constituencies, as we do, the minorities will always be under-represented, and we shall have accidental changes in the strength of the parties depending on how a previous Boundary Commission has done its work.
We cannot have arithmetical equality even immediately after a Boundary Commission's recommendations have been implemented. For example, an average constituency in England has 60,000 electors. Suppose we consider what to do about a constituency with 80,000 and one with 40,000. If in one case we split the constituency it is 33⅓ per cent. less than average but if we leave the other alone it is 33⅓ per cent. more than the average. This is an unattainable objective under our present laws. Although it was originally in the rules, someone deleted it, having done the arithmetic, because it was found to be totally impracticable.
Now the Boundary Commission has to have regard to other matters, including the delineation of constituency boundaries in relation to the boundaries of local authorities. Whether they should be more


or less the same is a matter of convenience as it has been over the years while these rules have operated. It is very awkward for hon. Members if their constituencies overlap the boundaries of several local authorities. That is the point of having this rule given to the Boundary Commission. The Home Secretary has said all along, and repeated it this afternoon, that if the Redcliffe-Maud proposals or anything like them are to be implemented and there is this unheaval of local authority boundaries, we shall have a similar upheaval in constituency boundaries within a few years.
The right hon. Gentleman has airily suggested that these enormous proposals, covering reorganisation of local government in England, can be pushed through in time for him to meet the undertaking to make changes by 31st March, 1972, and if he is not able to fulfil that undertaking he will carry out the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in their present form. I ask the House to consider whether this is practicable. All local authority organisations and many individual councillors are already beginning to complain that they have been given insufficient time to consider the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. There is a ground swell of hostility building up to certain features in the proposals.
The unitary authorities, 61 of them in England, are so enormous that they will not be worthy of the name. If they cover half a million or a million people outside conurbations, the area will be so enormous that people will have to travel many miles to get to their town halls. Aneurin Bevan once said that local government meant that everyone should be able to walk to his town hall.
If Ministers are to give to the criticisms which are being made the consideration they deserve, coming as they do from people who have served local government for many years, people should be given longer time to put in objections. The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London reported to this House in 1960 and the Bill was presented by the Conservative Government in 1963 implementing those recommendations with certain variations such as the size of the authorities proposed and other matters. It took the Conserva-

tive Government three years after receiving the report to place the Bill before the House. Surely it would take at least as long for alterations to be made in local government as a whole. This is a far larger problem, involving enormous variation in types of local authority covering the whole country. I do not think it can be done within the time scale announced by the Home Secretary.
Even if a Bill were published by 31st March, 1972, but had not reached the Committee stage, the Home Secretary of the day would say, "We are bound by this undertaking and will lay Orders to follow the pattern of the organisation set out in the Bill". Then the Bill would come before the House and, judging by the experience on the London Government Bill, some alterations would be made in Committee and on Report. At that time strong representations were made by authorities on the outer boundaries of Greater London, some of which were considered favourably by the Conservative Government at a later stage. I remember some Amendments which were rejected by the Home Secretary at that time, but when the Government received powerful recommendations from another place they agreed that perhaps those Amendments were sensible. Under the proposed arrangement, the Home Secretary will have laid Orders about the boundaries, and this House, or perhaps another place, with the approval of the Government, will have made alterations and the constituency boundaries will no longer coincide with the local authority boundaries. It seems that the Home Secretary has not thought out the consequences of the undertakings he has given.
It is not necessary to go over the whole argument about the enormous constituencies that there will be if the Bill goes through. The Home Secretary has blackmailed the House; he has held a pistol to our heads. He has said, "If you are not willing to accept my package and the Bill goes to the Lords and they insist on Amendments, you will not have anything at all. You will not have the essential reorganisation of constituencies in London". I speak as a Londoner, and I know how great is the concern in London that these changes should be implemented. Elections with single-member constituencies would be much fairer and more understandable for the


electorate. I think the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) would agree that that is the view of his party in Greater London. The Home Secretary has said, "If you do not accept my proposal you will not have anything at all". I wish that he represented a constituency with more than 100,000 electors.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) will know what I am talking about. She will agree that it is an appalling burden for an hon. Member to be asked to serve 110,000 or 120,000 constituents and try to do the job properly. I can imagine the volume of her correspondence because I have a constituency with an electorate only half that size and I answered 4,378 letters last year.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is that all?

Mr. Lubbock: That did not prevent my coming to this House and making speeches. In addition, a Member with a constituency like that has to do all the research work necessary to answer the letters. Is this fair to hon. Members or to the electors they represent? Those electors must be getting a service which is less thorough than if they lived in a constituency with the normal number of 60,000 electors, quite apart from the fact that, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, we have a situation in which one man's vote is worth five times that of another's.
The Home Secretary has placed us in an appalling dilemma by holding this pistol to our heads and saying, "If you do not accept my package, none of the other evils which we tried to remedy in the original Bill can be dealt with. They would then not be dealt with until after the General Election, say in October, 1970", by which time we shall have constituencies not of 110,000 like the hon. Lady's but of 120,000 or 130,000. That would be an impossible position.
I hesitate to know how to advise my hon. Friends. Faced with these Amendments—I say this with great reluctance, because I view with repugnance the way the Home Secretary has behaved—I advise my hon. Friends to accept the restoration of Clauses 2 and 3 but not to go along with the Home Secretary with the blackmail he has presented to us on the timing of the Bill. We should say

that we are not prepared to accept that this job could possibly be done by 1972. We know that this is a device by which the Home Secretary hopes to be able to persuade the Lords to go along with his solution. We are not prepared to accept that part of it, but we shall do our best to ensure that Clauses 2 and 3 are implemented.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I had not intended to participate in this debate, because I was unfortunately absent for a period during the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I apologise to him in advance if some fresh point that he introduced into his speech was made at a time when I was not in the Chamber and if, therefore, I do not take proper account of it in my remarks.
I had also thought that everything that could be said about this Measure had already been said in the previous discussions. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has acknowledged that we have to some extent inevitably been covering the ground that we covered before. However, we have also the fresh proposals which are made by the Government to deal with a fresh situation. We on this side are as much entitled to comment upon that as are hon. Members in other parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Orpington used the severe word "blackmail" to describe what the Home Secretary has proposed. This is an example of the exaggerated language that has been used by hon. Members opposite throughout the whole of these debates. We are dealing with a novel situation as far as I can recall, although there may be precedents that other hon. Members may bring to my attention. It is the novel situation of an attempt by another place to interfere with a Bill which is specifically dealing with the representation of the people.
The spokesman for the Liberal Party does not seem to complain on that score. Some members of his party in former times might have had some very severe words to say about the unelected section of the legislature trying to interfere with the practices to be laid down by the elected representatives of the legislature. I resent it very deeply that the House of Lords should still retain arty power whatsoever to interfere with the system of


election which this House may decide to have. It has a constitutional position to do so, but that does not mean that it is right to do so or that it can be justified in doing so.
I can understand such an attitude from the Tories. They have always been in favour of having as much power in the other place as possible. But it is an astonishing development that the Liberals, who at one time led great battles in the other place, should be saying to us in 1969 that we should sit here and tolerate a position in which another place is instructing us on how we are to arrange for the election of people to this House. There must be hundreds of Liberal peers turning in their graves because this should have occurred.
The hon. Member for Orpington used the word "blackmail" to describe the situation. The Home Secretary and the House have to deal with the novel situation of an attempt by the House of Lords to interfere with our practices. It can be said that the Home Secretary is being open with the House and is putting forward what he considers to be a fair proposal. In some respects I think that my right hon. Friend has gone very far. I might be critical of him for going so far and for making such a concession, but he has made a concession.
The Home Secretary says, "If this concession is rejected, if it does not appease them, I have to make clear to the House what will be the responsibilities of the Home Office afterwards and what course of action I shall take". That is not blackmail. That is giving the House an indication of what will be the consequences of its vote and giving to the other place an indication of what will be the consequences of its vote. The Home Secretary, far from being accused of blackmailing in this wild language, should be congratulated on having gone even further than was required of him in indicating to the House and to the country what will be the consequences of the House of Lords persisting in this kind of interference with the affairs of this House, which is utterly intolerable.
The hon. Member for Orpington also referred to when it is likely that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will be implemented. I agree that this is matter for

argument. No one can say for certain that all the proposals will be through by 1972. That is a very good argument. That is one reason why I might be critical of the extent of the concession which has been made by the Government, because I think that it goes very far that they should bind themselves to 1972.
What the hon. Member for Orpington and all the hon. Gentlemen who speak from the other side on this matter have never been prepared to face is the fact that the proposals they are advocating—that is, that there should be a wholesale change of boundaries now and, inevitably, a wholesale change of boundaries after the local government reforms, whatever they may be—involve a drastic change in parliamentary boundaries over a short period.
They say that part of the argument for doing it is that this was contemplated in the 1949 Act. That is true also, but the House and the country, as is revealed by debates in the House, appreciated that a mistake had been made in the 1949 Act—not a mistake in the sense of a mistake in the balance between the parties, but a mistake in thinking that it was desirable from the point of view of good parliamentary government that there should be changes in parliamentary boundaries at frequent intervals. I defy anybody to read the debates which occurred over the previous Boundary Commissions' Reports and reach any other conclusion.
I now forget the exact dates of those debates. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) knows them very well, because he participated in them. He and I have had controversy about the length of those debates. I have discovered that he is marginally correct and that in fact the debates permitted the House on some of those occasions were slightly longer than the debates permitted on this occasion, but there is nothing much in it.
Anybody who reads those debates will see that it was the weight of opinion in the House—not merely on the Labour side, but on both sides—that it is awkward, difficult and inconvenient, not merely from the point of view of Members of Parliament but also from the point of view of constituents, that there should be this chopping and changing of boundaries all the time.
You, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, will appreciate exactly the case I am putting, because many distinguished people contributed to those debates at that time and pressed this view very strongly. As a result there was some alteration in the way in which the Boundary Commission should operate.
I have always stated that my approach to the Bill has been somewhat different from that of the Home Secretary, although the two opinions have at times converged—occasionally in the Division Lobbies, and elsewhere. I have never taken the view about the Boundary Commission which most hon. Members seem to take. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) talks as if the Boundary Commission is a kind of referee whose decision we must accept and implies that we are cheating if we do not accept it. I have never accepted that view. That is a most offensive view for anyone to take towards the House of Commons. I take the view that the boundaries should be decided by the elected House of Commons, not by the House of Lords, not by some Boundary Commission or some outside body. The final authority rests here, and we have the right to exercise our power.
If it is said by some hon. Members, as I think was argued by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that there is something indecent in the Home Secretary suggesting that we should lay these Orders in order to reject them all, I do not think it is indecent, any more than I think it was indecent when the Government of which he was a member had a Boundary Commission and said to the House of Commons "You must accept the whole lot" and all the proposals went through without any amendment whatsoever.
I think that was absolutely improper. I said so in the debates at that time and I say so now. The House of Commons must exercise its own political judgment about how these Boundary Commission Reports are to be translated into practice, and I say that this elected House of Commons has more right to do that than any other body in the country. Indeed, we have the sole right to do it. I can appreciate the case of hon. Members who have very large constituencies and find the situation inconvenient. I think it is inconvenient, and we should deal

with that situation as soon as possible. But hon. Members must also acknowledge the other part of the argument, that the constant chopping and changing of the constituencies is derogation of the principles of Parliament and the successful operation of Parliament.
The association between Members of of Parliament and their individual constituencies is very important. The hon. Member for Orpington is in favour of some proportional representation, and we all know there is a case for it, although I am against it partly because I believe it would destroy the relationship between the individual Member of Parliament and his constituency, which is one of the most valuable, parts of our system of parliamentary representation.

Mr. Wallace Lawler: Absolute rubbish.

Mr. Foot: After the hon. Member—I apologise for not knowing his constituency—has been a Member a little longer, he may come to the view that the association between a Member of this House and his constituency has some value in it. He may form that view, even if his constituents do not share it. I believe, therefore, that those of us who have argued against chopping and changing parliamentary boundaries frequently have a perfectly valid case to make. I know that there are arguments on the other side, but there are no grounds for accusing us of favouring cheating or of constitutional impropriety. Those words should be withdrawn. We have witnessed in these debates not the debasement of Parliament but the debasement of the English language, the use of these wild words to describe something which does not bear any relation whatsoever to those words. I hope that we shall not hear any more of them.
6.45 p.m.
There would be a very strong sense of grievance if the result of what the Government are proposing, either in the original Bill or in these Amendments to the Bill, were to be that the electoral balance were tipped very heavily against the party opposite, or even marginally—that is to say, if the result of the boundary changes taken all together, in London and the country, were a strong list against the Conservative Party in the operation of the electoral machine. They would have a


case for making an accusation of cheating. But that is not the situation.
So far as one can judge—and I agree that it is not a matter that anybody can judge for certain—we should take the impartial view of Mr. David Butler, the man who created the science of "pepsology" or however it is pronounced—[An HON. MEMBER: "Psephology."] He is a most distinguished member of a great university. Mr. Butler's view certainly denies everything that has been said from the other side of the House. His view about the way in which these changes or the previous changes would affect the electoral balance is that they would merely restore a situation under which the balance would be about equal between the parties, with no list either way. He indicates that the Tory Party has had the electoral apparatus listed in its favour ever since 1949. In the elections of 1950, 1951, 1955, 1959 and 1964, and almost, I believe, in the election of 1966 there was a list in favour of the Tories.
That is what they are angry about. They say that it does not look as if that is going to continue. They say "That is cheating because we must always have the electoral system twisted in our favour". What they would have to prove in order to substantiate the case of cheating is that the Government had introduced changes in the Boundary Commission's Reports which listed the whole thing in the Labour Party's favour. But that is not the case. According to the experts, it will just about restore the balance. Indeed, if the Government went ahead with the proposals in the original Boundary Commission Report they would have restored the bias in favour of the Tories, which is what the Tories want to keep now. This is no reason for throwing out the Boundary Commission Report. Those are the consequences.
I am saying, "If you want to substantiate the charge of cheating you must show that this twists the electoral system in your favour". There has been no attempt in this House or in another place to prove that proposition. I guarantee that this point will not be discussed again if this Bill goes to another place. The only neutral suggestion we have had has come down on the side which I am presenting. We have put this case before, and no attempt to denounce it has been made by hon. Members opposite.
I hope we shall not hear any more of this wild language. I hope also that the newspapers will study some of these problems, instead of taking their information from the Conservative Central Office—that highly unbiased authority! I hope they will not take their views from the Liberal Party in its latest incarnation as the defender of the right of the second Chamber to interfere with us here. What we should do as a House of Commons is to assert our rights.
It is extremely serious when another place attempts to interfere with the process of election to this House. Many of us on these benches have fought very hard to secure the abolition of the second Chamber, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who were rather dubious about this argument in the past will be reinforced in accepting these views now.
I hope hon. Members will also take note of what would have been the constitutional position if the Bill for the so-called reform of the second Chamber which was presented in the course of this Parliament had been passed through. We should have had this bogus reform of the second Chamber, stuffed with these castrati, as I called them on an earlier occasion. A list of how They voted on this issue was read out by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. They would have been able to interfere with the proposals of the Government and they would have done it in a very high and mighty manner. They would have said, "We are a reconstituted Chamber now. We can pronounce on these matters". They would have done that, and this Government would have had no retort.
Thus, as on so many previous occasions—and, I dare say, on many future occasions—some of us on the back benches have come to the Government's rescue. We have done so on this Bill as well—perhaps they needed some rescuing—and we have assisted them by what we have done. I am glad that they are resisting the pressure from the other place. They have made some concession to the other place; I do not complain of that, for I am a flexible person, but I think that they have gone very far. However, I am glad that the Home Secretary made clear in the debate today that we will not tolerate a situation in which a


completely unrepresentative unelected Chamber should interfere with the rights of the elected representatives of this country.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: It is fascinating to have the privilege of following the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), whose speeches are always highly pyrotechnic, and it is particularly pleasant, although we are not, perhaps, in the same state of happy co-operation across the Floor as we were on an earlier constitutional Measure this Session, to hear him claiming with such charm the credit for coming to the rescue of his own Front Bench, especially when the arguments which he so forcibly produces seem to be totally at variance with the arguments led by the Home Secretary on the same subject.
Inevitably, the debate on this series of Amendments must contain a certain admixture of old material, so to speak, with a certain mixture of new, and the new element which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had made fine play of is the presence of the other place in debates on the redistribution of parliamentary seats. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be highly indignant at the presumption of another place in intervening in this matter. He is a well known and enthusiastic unicameralist, and his speech bore that imprint throughout.
The whole country has good reason to be thankful for the intervention of a second Chamber in a matter of electoral representation, when those who are the guardians of our unwritten Constitution are attempting to distort and twist it in their favour. The temporary occupants of the seats of power are attempting to make permanent their holding of power by twisting the electoral system. Thank God for the other House which has stepped in and stopped it most effectively, as the Home Secretary admitted, though not openly and in so many words, in his deplorable speech opening this debate.
It is understandable, therefore, that a unicameralist and, at the same time, a member of the party now for a short time still in power should be annoyed at the intervention of the other place in this matter, though it will give no surprise

even on his own benches, and certainly not on these or in the country outside.
The hon. Gentleman's views have been canvassed a good deal this year. Both Chambers of our Legislature have suffered under the attempts of this Government to twist them in their own favour. First, the idea was that the upper House should be entirely a House of place-men of the Prime Minister now in power. We can be glad that the House of Commons aborted that one. Then, the idea was that the Socialist Party should be permanently established in power in the House of Commons. We can be thankful that the House of Lords abolished that one. There has been an admirable interchange of function, and both manifestations have been highly salutary. The whole country will be glad of them, and, if any attempt should be made, as, no doubt, it may be, to stir up talk of "Lords versus Commons", I have no doubt that the support of the people of this country will be firmly in favour of the Lords as they have discharged their duty to the nation in this Session of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale complained repetitively about the matter of the timing of intervals between changes in our boundaries. This is potentially a serious matter, and there could be serious disruption if the arrangements were foolishly made. I noticed that he always used the same phrases. His wide vocabulary and imagery failed him on this occasion, and he kept talking about "constant chopping and changing".
The last change of real substance in our boundaries was in 1948, 21 years ago. If I recall aright, the legislation of those times demanded that the boundaries be changed at intervals of approximately ten years. It was then laid down—I was not in the House at the time—that, for the sake of convenience, the interval should be lengthened to something like 15 years. As a result, the Boundary Commission, which began to sit, if I am not mistaken, in 1966, produced its Report in the early part of this year, the interval then having reached 20 years.
No one need complain of any fait accompli  in constantly chopping and changing our parliamentary boundaries. Twenty-one years so far is a long time—and it is "21 years not out", as this Government intend it to be.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Accepting that it has been beneficial to the electorate that changes should not have occurred save over a fair span of time, is not that everything which can be said in support of our contention that it would be harmful to the electorate if such changes were to take place, perhaps, twice in about two years?

Dr. Bennett: I am coming to that. Continuity over what may at its earliest be about 25 years, a quarter of a century, is certainly not what was in the mind of the original legislators who enacted in this House that the interval should be fairly long and rather longer than ten years. Even a once-for-all 25-year gap is, with the present mobility of our population, utterly impracticable and not to be tolerated. It is obvious everywhere in the country how the asymmetry of our electoral system has become more and more intense, until we have the phenomena so frequently referred to in this debate as well as in previous debates—the "One man five votes, if he is a Socialist" line which is so effectively advocated by the present Government.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is an enthusiastic unicameral redistributionist. He does not want the Boundary Commission to do its work. This House should do the redistribution, he says, and this Government, with their present majority—which has dwindled by one-third or so since they began—intend that it shall so be done.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the pseudo-science of—as I think he called it—"pepsology", something to do with one of those American drinks, I suppose, and he thinks that the Boundary Commission is devastatingly pro-Tory. His peroration was a grand exercise in an attempt to right the wrongs of centuries, to amend the permanent built-in bias of the Constitution towards the overrepresentation of Tory votes, which he accused the Boundary Commission of abetting and seeking to perpetuate.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am not saying that it had that purpose, but that is the result.

Dr. Bennett: He says that that is what it did, whether it had that purpose or not; being a great Parliamentarian, the hon. Gentleman would never ascribe base motives in that way. But he said that

the Boundary Commission was biased pro-Tory, and he went on with his ineffable remark that the present Bill would only rectify the imbalance sought to be inflicted by the Boundary Commission and should, therefore, be welcomed by the House, the definite Socialist slant in the Bill being no more than just. That is a very curious argument, and quite the opposite of what the Home Secretary said. He denied any such slant entirely.
The Boundary Commission was set up to do its job long before the Redcliffe-Maud Commission was set up. This has been mentioned today. I am repeating old stuff, but it is basic stuff. This is the real matter with which we are concerned.
7.0 p.m.
Furthermore, the Boundary Commission's Report has been before Parliament for six months or more, and could very well have been carried into effect by now. The very long period of 21 years without amendment of any substance to constituencies could have been at an end.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), whose interest in the debate seems to have ceased, put forward some arguments very forcefully. Apparently, once the Boundary Commission had reported, we could look forward to a very long period before any likelihood of its work being allowed to proceed if it had to wait until after the Redcliffe-Maud proposals had been translated in part or in whole into legislation. There would in fact be no likelihood of any "constant chopping and changing", such as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale refers to, because the local government associations are only just beginning to come to the boil about Redcliffe-Maud. The Home Office and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will hear a great deal from them, if my constituency is any model, about their dissatisfaction with the whole idea of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. With the hon. Member for Orpington, I believe that it will be many years before the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations are carried out. All the more reason, then, for our having the present Boundary Commission recommendations set down and approved by Parliament and put into effect.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Did not my hon. Friend hear the Minister


say that Redcliffe-Maud would be implemented a couple of years after we wanted this implemented?

Dr. Bennett: Yes.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My point was that it is possible that there would be two upheavals within a few years, and I contrasted this with the pattern of the past, when this had been spaced out over a span of years.

Dr. Bennett: I am sorry to seem to usurp your position, Mr. Speaker, in presiding over a debate.
I find that forecasts given by Government representatives about the speed at which the Redcliffe-Maud proposals will be implemented vary very much with whether the Government seek to gain by delay or by haste. They do not match. With all respect to the Minister who is now with us, I do not think that his forecasts chime in too accurately with those of some of his colleagues.
What I wish to affirm and deplore is that the provisions of the Boundary Commission, whom everybody but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale regards as being absolutely straight and without party bias, could already have been in effect, and we could have approached the next Election with an up-to-date register system and an up-to-date electoral distribution, if the Government had not sought to intervene to prevent it. That is crime No. 1 by the Government.
The next thing is the most appalling Bill they have produced, which is now reappearing before the House and which distorts things even worse. It takes a selective bash at the redistribution, doing it in London, where no doubt the Government feel that it will do them some good, and going to one or two places, not including Huyton, where extra-large seats need to be redistributed.
As I said in earlier debates, my constituency is one of those few outside London which are affected by the Bill. My constituency is enormous; it is approaching the six-figure mark. I am not complaining. The Home Secretary himself drew attention to the fact that I was not complaining about this. But it is time something was done about it. However, the Bill's picking on mine and an adjacent constituency to form three constituencies out of two is the most ludi-

crous distortion of any function of boundaries. It makes a sort of dog's breakfast from two constituencies, both of which are well-known entities which the Boundary Commission, after its changes, would still have left, with a rather larger number of well-known entities. This Bill would merely add one constituency made up of fragments of Fareham—God knows where that delightful town would be carved up—with a lesser portion of it being handed over to join places as far away as Leigh Park and over towards Havant: and possibly a little bit right down to the island of Portsea. It is incredible that this silliness should take place. That is why I rejoice that the Bill is coming to a bitter end.
I do not regret that my constituency should be divided. It needs dividing, and it does not make any difference to the electoral balance at what point it might be divided. But the way of doing it put forward in the Bill is undoubtedly the worst that has even been suggested. Therefore, the Bill deserves to be turned down, as it has been, even on account of one local set of circumstances.
But one of the enormous falsities that has been brought into our discussions has been the idea that Redcliffe-Maud impedes the redistribution of parliamentary seats. The changes suggested by the Boundary Commission in my part of Hampshire at no point transgress any of the new Redcliffe-Maud boundaries or any boundaries at all likely to be modified because of Redcliffe-Maud. The Redcliffe-Maud proposals for local government would be entirely unchanged whether or not the constituencies were redistributed in my part of the world now, and the constituencies would be unchanged and unaffected whether or not the Redcliffe-Maud changes came for local government in time.
The Government do not have a leg to stand on in claiming that they could not do the one because of the other. This shows the latent dishonesty in their whole attitude on the matter. This is equally applicable to London, and I have no doubt to other parts of the country. So even if the Government arguments were valid, that Redcliffe-Maud precludes the redistribution of seats, London, Southern Hampshire and no doubt many other parts of the country could go ahead now with no inconvenience in the future


because of Redcliffe-Maud or anything like that. There is even now a possibility of the redistribution of the constituencies of perhaps half the population of this country without any objection whatever from the Radcliffe-Maud arguments.
We are seeing the most disgraceful omission of duty. On top of this, we had that shameful declaration by the Home Secretary today. I was horrified. I have never heard anything so coldly cynical. With all due deference to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the Home Secretary is the guardian of equity of the electoral system and political fairness in this country, and he is under particular scrutiny at present in Northern Ireland. But here he says that he has a statutory duty which he knows lies upon him, but that if he is frustrated in getting through this bit of gerrymandering which the Government have given him to do, and which he has shown no apparent reluctance to carry out, he will disobey the spirit of the instructions under which he holds his high office. He will lay the Orders he is required by law to lay, and has not laid, but advise his colleagues to vote them down. This takes the cake for cynical double-facedness in politics. It puts the right hon. Gentleman on a level with his Prime Minister. So we have the betrayal of this very high trust and "Slippery Jim" goes into the shadows thoroughly discredited. I hope that we shall vote solidly against the Government Motion and that the House of Lords will again throw out these proposals.

Mr. Tom Driberg: There has been a good deal of imputation of base motives against my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other members of the Government. Usually in this House, certainly in the context of other debates, you do not allow base motives to be attributed by hon. Members to each other, Mr. Speaker. However, my right hon. Friend is big enough to take these jibes and sneers. I want to draw attention to one point, very briefly, which has not been sufficiently considered. It is a perfectly serious point. I suggest that, because of it, if for no other reason, it might be premature now to revise the boundaries.
The Government have announced and are now carrying out an immense exten-

sion of the electorate. There are to be six million new young voters, who have never voted before, at the next General Election: that is an average of about 10,000 per constituency—but only an average, and therefore in some constituencies there may be only 2,000 or 5,000 new voters while in others there might well be 15,000 or 20,000. It depends on the nature of the constituency, on the kind of places in it—whether there are any new towns, for instance, where many young married people congregate.
This in itself may be quite a good reason for not immediately implementing all the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. We might find them out of date as soon as we implemented them if we did them now without regard to the number of new voters in any particular constituency.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. If what he says is so, it is surely one of the arguments for not implementing any of the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions and not an argument for implementing some.

Mr. Driberg: That is quite a good intervention and I honestly do not know how to answer it. But I was not dealing with that particular question but with the general question of the Commissions' recommendations, and the overwhelming majority of them are, after all, not being implemented. London constituencies are perhaps more stable in their population than others. Those on the fringes of London, the outer suburbs, such as the one I have the honour to represent, are on the whole losing population rather than gaining as people and factories move out into the country and the new towns. This, I think, is perhaps part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. [Interruption.] I am told it is a good answer.

Dr. Bennett: I appreciate the anxiety the hon. Gentleman displays on this matter, but surely the names of those same young people will need to be collected and put on the register in whatever constituency nominally they happen to be, and, therefore, redistribution would only be something of a scissors and paste matter in cutting up the existing


registers. The names would still have to be collected just the same.

Mr. Driberg: I do not quite see the point of that intervention. The new electoral registers will contain the young peoples' names, and will be in operation, I think, from February. There will not be very much time between February and the probable date of the next General Election in which to deal with the matter in the manner the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I said that this would be only a brief intervention and I am determined to make it so unless I am constantly interrupted. All I want to say, therefore, about this immense extension of the electorate is that, apart from the need to avoid premature redistribution which might have to be corrected yet again quite soon, because of these large numbers of young people, the fact that the Government have extended the electorate in this precise way is surely some indication of their good faith in electoral matters—[Laughter.]—since some of the newspaper opinion polls are already saying, rightly or wrongly, that most of these young voters are going to vote Conservative.
I do not think that most of them will vote Conservative when they grasp the follies—I will not put this too strongly—and ineptitudes of the Conservative Party, especially under its present leadership, which is as embarrassing to the Conservatives as it is to the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not widen the debate too much.

Mr. Driberg: I appreciate your recalling me, Mr. Speaker. I was diverted by some unseemly laughter on the benches opposite. The main attack today has been on the Government's good faith. There has been a serious imputation of base motives against the Home Secretary. I think that I am entitled to say that one of the reasons why we can have some confidence in the good faith of the Government in electoral matters is precisely this immense extension of the electorate to the young new voters.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I intend to make a brief intervention on the Scottish aspect of what the Government propose because the Home Secretary admitted

that he was dealing with England and Wales and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will deal with the Scottish aspect.
The Amendments which the House of Lords have put forward would delay until six months' time the laying of the Orders and the action which should take place under the Act, and the Government are thus given time to reconsider the attitude they have hitherto adopted. This is an entirely proper exercise of a function of a second Chamber. It means that the second Chamber is checking an action by this Government and allowing it to be reconsidered on a matter of constitutional propriety.
An astonishing proposal was made today by the Home Secretary, that, if the House of Lords stick to their Amendments, he will lay the Orders before this House, which he will be under the duty to do, and will then try to persuade the House to vote them down. This is an extraordinary procedure about which the Government should think again, because many in this House and elsewhere will consider it an outrageous way of behaving.
The Government's proposal would have the effect of delaying action on the Scottish Boundary Commission's Report for three years as well as the other Boundary Commission's Reports, if the option is not taken up before March, 1970. This means that, if that option is not taken up, then, for at least one General Election, and probably two, out-of-date constituency boundaries will still exist. Only within the last three weeks, as the Secretary of State for Scotland announced today, has the Scottish equivalent of the Redcliffe-Maud Report—the Report of the Wheatley Commission—appeared. It has thus appeared since our last debate on this Bill. That Report suggests seven regions and 37 districts in a two-tier structure for local government in Scotland in future.
Previously we were told, in the debates in June and July, that the reason for the option put into the Bill for Scotland—and Northern Ireland—was to enable the Government to look at the Wheatley Commission Report when it came out to decide whether to go ahead with the Scottish Boundary Commission's recommendations now or wait and put the


Scottish proposals in the same category as those for England and Wales, excluding London.
The Wheatley Report has been before the Secretary of State for Scotland for at least three weeks, and shows that in the 37 districts proposed there would be greater disparities in population between district and district than in the Boundary Commission's proposals. This is understandable, because the Boundary Commission has no duty to equate population but deals with other matters also, such as geography and communications. In any event, the Wheatley recommendations will be a matter for discussion and consultation for many months ahead in Scotland. It is clear that they are not accepted everywhere in Scotland. There will be considerable arguments about them, and rather different proposals may well eventually emerge and obtain majority support in Scotland. One of the points of controversy, which was the subject of a minority report, and which is certain to be one of the most important matters argued, is whether there should be more than the 37 second-tier authorities.
I should therefore like to ask the Secretary of State whether there is anything in the Wheatley Commission's Report which in any way affects his decision, whether he is any wiser, as a result of having seen that Report, about whether the recommendations of the Scottish Boundary Commission should be put into effect before March 1970, or left over, as the Government suggest.
If the Government decide not to use the option in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the timing will be as follows: the general review by the Scottish Boundary Commission will be started by March, 1972, or shortly thereafter. But the question is whether the Secretary of State expects progress on the Wheatley Report to have allowed alterations in the boundaries of local government to have been passed by Parliament by March, 1972.
As I said earlier in an intervention, in a statement only last Friday the Minister of State at the Scottish Office was reported in the Scottish Press to have said that he did not expect the Wheatley Report to be implemented until about 1974. I know that the question is what

"implemented" means. The Home Secretary said that it meant that the new bodies were coming into existence. But does that mean that the Government are satisfied that Scottish legislation will have passed through Parliament by March, 1972, to reorganise local government in Scotland, because until the legislation is passed through Parliament, nobody can say what the boundaries will be? I hope that the Home Secretary will not regard Parliament as a rubber stamp, which is exactly what he did over decimal currency when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Until a Bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Government cannot be certain what the future boundaries for the new local government bodies in Scotland will be.
If that legislation is not through Parliament until about 1974, which is what I suspect the Minister of State meant by his remarks, that means in five years' time. That would be the right moment in any case for the Scottish Boundary Commission to be starting its next general review. A general review takes about four years, and that means that in 10 years from now the Scottish Boundary Commission would be in a position to make one of the routine reports which it has to make between 10 and 15 years from the last one.
Therefore, the timing for Scotland would certainly fit in well if the Government were to implement the Boundary Commission's present proposals now and then wait for the new local government boundaries to be decided, which would be in about five years. The next general review could then be started. The Scottish Boundary Commission would be able to report in its normal routine way, if it thought fit, in 1979.
The Secretary of State for Scotland himself spoke about this matter when the 1958 legislation was going through. He expressed himself in terms similar to those which I am now using. He said:
I accept the underlying principles of the Bill and the extension from three to seven to ten to fifteen years, but these other problems can be sorted out only if we have an assurance that there will be interim and periodic reviews so we shall not have this continuing, aggravating situation of injustice and unfairness as between one Member of Parliament and another and between one constituency and another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February. 1958; Vol. 582, c. 282.]


That is what the present Secretary of State said when he was in opposition in 1958 and speaking on the last Act in the series, the 1958 Act. He said very clearly that he was prepared to move from periods of three to seven years to 10 to 15 years only provided that there were periodic reviews, because he thought that even a 10 to 15-year period was rather long. But if the Government carry out what they are now proposing, there will be at least 20 years before there is a change in the parliamentary boundaries in Scotland—22 years in fact.
Should not this report, which is the result of four years' hard work by the Boundary Commission, be put into effect? It would mean that the work done in Scotland in the last four years would not be wasted. The Commission's recommendations for Scotland are not to any great extent unsatisfactory to the Labour Party. I am advised that they would call into question the position of only two or three Labour seats in Scotland, which is not a great disadvantage to the Labour Party. Surely the Secretary of State can rise above purely political considerations in this matter, and not make the reorganisation of local government in Scotland a transparent excuse for delay. Is it worth the candle in Scotland simply because two or three Labour seats may be in jeopardy? Is it worth postponing the results of this work so that, in spite of all the Secretary of State himself said in 1958, for more than 20 years the Scottish electorate as a whole will be left without the benefit of up-to-date recommendations for boundaries?

Mr. Ross: It may be fair if I intervene at this point and deal with this peculiarly Scottish matter.
When the original Bill was presented, we did not have the Wheatley Commission's report and did not know exactly when it was to come. It was then suggested that there ought to be an extended time during which we could exercise our power to say yea or nay in respect of the Boundary Commission's report. We have just received the Wheatley Report—only a matter of three weeks ago—and for three weeks I have been concerned with the furtherance of the timing of discussions and so on.
We should get this matter into proportion right away. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon

Campbell) suggested that by not exercising my option in one way I should be using a transparent excuse to get some benefit for the Labour Party. He must know quite well that it is difficult to tell from the proposals of the Boundary Commission whether his party, mine or any other party, would have any advantage. I have been concerned about the practical problems involved.
For the hon. Member it does not matter, as he is placed as a constituency Member, whether we accept the Boundary Commission report. His constituency is not affected whether we stand still or accept the report. But the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission would greatly affect his constituency, which would be cut in two, and I know that lie would not want me to come to a hasty decision about that.
The hon. Gentleman quoted me on unfairness and injustice as between one M.P. and another. That was fair enough. However, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) is elected on the votes of 32,200 electors, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) takes more than double that number, 66,000. These would hardly be changed by the Boundary Commission's proposals. Let us not get the idea that somehow the Boundary Commission's report means justice and fairness all round, while standing still is entirely different.
7.30 p.m.
The same thing is true of Aberdeenshire, East, with 42,800, after the Boundary Commission position has been dealt with. In Aberdeen, South, the City, there are 63,700. There is already inbuilt injustice. I could give many more examples. So let us not talk about gerrymandering. I regret very much that we have had these issues of blackmail. What was done in the House of Lords robs me of my option. They tell me "You must introduce the Boundary Commission Report, but you can have until a certain extended time in which to do so."
With respect, that is not giving an indication to me that I should exercise the judgment that as a Minister of the Crown I think I should have the right to exercise. This is one of the weaknesses of the case. People think somehow or other that we should hand over the rights of decision


by Parliament to an outside body, the Boundary Commission. It has always been the right of Parliament to accept, reject or modify. I hope that people will appreciate that if there are difficulties over the Bill now, it is as a result of what has happened in another place. What we have got back from another place is an entirely different Bill from that which we sent. The Amendments put forward would restore the option which has hitherto been open to me.
The Wheatley Report has been received since the Amendment first appeared on the Order Paper. It has been available for only three weeks, and I am considering it. We do not want a hasty decision on this subject of parliamentary constituency boundaries. I hope that when this goes back and if our Amendments are accepted, reality will be retained in relation to the option and that no hasty decision by the other place will rob me of that option or force me into the position of taking action which speeds up the process.
We shall have to bear in mind exactly what would happen. The Home Secretary has referred to the necessity that would be forced on us of laying orders. That would reduce the amount of time I have for consideration. We should accept this Amendment and retain this option, and I shall be able to make a statement at the appropriate time about the Scottish position.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn referred to the timing of Wheatley. I do not know where he got his information from about the speech made by the Minister of State.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: It was published in the Scotsman.

Mr. Ross: I have not seen it. What I said today about timing was that we want to waste no time and yet give adequate time to discuss the proposals that have been put forward by the Commission. The decisions have to be taken. The timetable given by the Home Secretary is one that we can meet in Scotland. The Wheatley Commission says that there should be two appointed days, the first one to be a year after the passing of the Bill by this House, when, of course, the new bodies will come into being.
If the Bill were passed in 1972, this would follow in 1973. The Boundary Commission could make a start and go over the position without the long delays that some people envisaged when they suggested that it would be 1979 before a reactivated Commission could give us a new boundary report. There is an element of pessimism here about the timing. The matter is so important to Scotland that we want to cut down the period of hesitations and doubts. We should get the legislation on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also exaggerates the differences that there are in Scotland about this. The fact that the Royal Commission produced principles that were agreed by all hon. Members, the fact that there was an hon. Member of this House from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and one, when he was appointed, from this side of the House, gives an idea of the extent of the acceptance of the general principles of reorganisation. We should be able to come to considered judgments on these matters much quicker than he was imagining.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I did point out that there was a minority report on this very question of the number of districts, and that the two hon. Members of this House whom he mentioned were the authors of that minority report.

Mr. Ross: We must get things right. It was not a minority report. They accepted with reservations. I have referred to these reservations today. We should be able to resolve this and come to decisions on the structure and functions, including this point, fairly early, so that we can see a way forward to earlier legislation than some people are suggesting. They give the impression that it will be 10 or 12 years before this Parliament deals with it.
It certainly will not be if the Labour Party is in control, because we cannot wait that length of time. If I had taken advice about certain other reorganisation in respect of local authorities we should be in a very much more difficult position this year over water supply, but that is another point. My feeling is that we ought to accept the Amendments moved by the Home Secretary. It would be to the advantage of Scotland to retain this option, although I would like to come


to a decision and make a statement long before the spring of next year.

Mr. David Crouch: I do not intend to make a long speech or a vicious attack across the Floor of the House upon the Home Secretary, because I was not here when he spoke this afternoon. I was in Committee upstairs. I am concerned that we should have to fight for our rights and the rights of the electors in this way. I am very disturbed that one hon. Member who normally fights so strongly as a great democrat, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), should try to twist things and make us stand on our heads to understand his argument in defence of the Home Secretary's action.
It is wrong that we should have we fight so hard, tonight and last summer, when Parliament should be putting right a change which has occurred and which Parliament recognised would occur, for which it made provision in the 1949 and 1958 Acts. We have waited 15 years for a recommendation from the Boundary Commission and now the Government are asking the House to say that we should not recognise the Commission's recommendations because of some other Bill which may come before this House as a result of a Royal Commission on the reform of local government.
The House has even been asked to accept a suggested figure of time from the Under-Secretary of State that it may mean another change within two years. That is not an accepted figure which the House can recognise. Everyone knows that the question of local government reform as put forward in Redcliffe-Maud will mean something much more than another two years' thought in the country. It is wise that it should be more than another year or two. I would not advocate that we should for ever put the Redcliffe-Maud ideas under the carpet and not give them proper consideration. I recommend that we give consideration to opinions in the country and to the implications of such recommendations as those made in the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
It is not a question of whether a general election is pending in another year. This applies even if a general election were not due for another five years.

The Boundary Commission's Report is the report of the referee—the word which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale refuses to accept. Why should he say that we should not accept it? I thought that the Boundary Commission was meant to be a referee. This House has fought for many years to show that it is a great democratic institution and that it wishes to protect itself from any possible accusation of gerrymandering. It therefore set up an impartial body, the Boundary Commission. I am not interested in counting the seats or votes which might result from the Boundary Commission's judgments and recommendations. I am much more concerned with the stability and dignity of this House.
We have heard this afternoon protestations from hon. Members opposite, and particularly from the Front Bench, which are not worthy of them and certainly not of this Chamber. I do not wish to hurl accusations at the Home Secretary because I did not hear his speech this afternoon. But I want the House to consider what we are doing. We are not criticising the other place for giving us another chance to consider the decision which I think this House made wrongly in the summer. We are pausing to consider whether we are upholding this House as a great democratic institution and whether we are giving sufficient consideration to the opportunities of the electorate in returning their Member of Parliament to this place.
I regret that there is a party in the House, the Government party, which is letting down the standards of the House of Commons by this type of behaviour. I am sorry to have to say that. I hope that when the Minister replies she will take account of the serious view which I am not alone in holding but which is held so widely throughout the country. It is, rightly, the House of Commons and not the other place which must make this decision. What the Home Secretary said is perfectly true. He has the power, the Government, the Patronage Secretary and the majority to achieve the will of the Government. But the Government have a duty not only to their own party but to an inheritance of 700 years in the development of the democratic institution of this country.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) started his quietly delivered speech by saying how much importance he thought attached to this occasion while the Opposition were having to fight for the rights of the people. I only wish that the public could see the eight members of the Opposition who have taken the trouble to be in the Chamber to take part in the great fight which they claim to be putting up for their constituents and the people of this country.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 700 years of parliamentary history. If this is the best that the Opposition can do in the defence of 700 years of parliamentary history—a handful of Members to take part in this type of debate—it is obvious, and it will be obvious to the public, that what we have said on numerous occasions is true, namely, that this gingered-up row over the Boundary Commission's Report and the Government's action is no more than a phoney debate designed to generate a little bit of political heat among their supporters outside. Even the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is yawning in despair and tiredness at the speeches which he has heard from his hon. Friends. I do not blame him for yawning after such a long, weary series of nonsensical speeches.
We have heard charges of bad faith and charges that the Government were asking for a blank cheque. I would describe this afternoon's debate as a little more than just "phoney"; it is a disgraceful debate. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), speaking with all the authority of an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, ended his speech by referring to the situation in Northern Ireland and trying to link it with what is happening in the House. He said—and I am sure I am reporting him accurately—that before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary starts lecturing the people of Ulster about democracy he should consider what he was doing in this debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that those words will be seized upon by the extremists in Ulster to discredit the action of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which only yesterday he supported. It is disgraceful that the right

hon. and learned Gentleman should give that hostage to the extremists in Ulster and to attack the very policy which he claimed yesterday in all sincerity to support. But we are used to that sort of classic "Hoggwash"——

Mr. Hogg: Ha, ha.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not laugh at my jokes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman always does. I am delighted that he can spare at least one "Ha, ha" for somebody else's.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman had the temerity to say that the Bill was a completely new Bill. He even had the temerity to cast a slur upon the judgment of the Chair and of the Table, because if he was serious in his attack on the Bill he must be serious in saying that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Mr. Speaker have failed in your duty by allowing what the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes as a new Bill to come before the House. We know that he was not even serious in that charge, as he is surely not serious in the many other charges which he has made.
One of the main arguments advanced in previous debates—and it was advanced again today—is that there could be two General Elections, one in the next 18 months and one probably in 1975 or 1976, fought on the existing parliamentary boundaries.
Those hon. Members who were present when we debated these matters earlier will recall the Amendment put down by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) when he attempted to do precisely what the Government have done now—that is, to put on a time limit when the Boundary Commission must be reactivated. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment specified the date of May, 1972, and he described his Amendment in these words:
If the Amendment were accepted, we would have a fresh general review by the Boundary Commissions available not, alas, in time for the next General Election, but in time for the General Election after that".
And yet we still get today the charge made by hon. Members opposite that if my right hon. Friend's Amendment to insert the date of March, 1972, is accepted, we will still have two General Elections without a Boundary Commission review.

Sir D. Renton: My Amendment on that occasion was moved in the context of things as they were then. I doubt whether it is in order to discuss it now, but if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say this, it was moved, quite obviously, without prejudice to our general objection to the Bill.
Also, I say quite candidly, having had more time to reflect upon the matter than was possible then, because the proceedings were very much rushed, but I was wrong in saying that the Amendment which I then moved would not have affected the position as at the General Election after next. In other words, both under the Government's proposals and my Amendment there would be a serious risk that the General Election after next would take place on the basis of the electorate as it was in 1953.

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong then he is wrong in this debate today. In that same debate in July, in moving his Amendment, he went on to express the hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it was moved and would give it favourable consideration and not dig his toes in.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked him to do and now we have the excuse, given just a few seconds ago, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had more time to consider the matter, that what he said in July was wrong and was foolish and that he was pushed and hurried in making that contribution to the debate. I do not know what we can do with an Opposition which shifts its ground so rapidly and with such regularity as right hon. and hon. Members opposite do.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to retract his words and admit his mistake, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) will do the same. Are we to have a recanting by two members of the Opposition Front Bench of what they said on behalf of the Conservative Party on previous occasions?
On 14th July, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said:
We look upon the Amendment"—

which set out the date of May, 1972—
as a test of the good faith of the Government. I do not believe that we can leave to any Government an open-ended option to start the process of a review of boundaries at any date which they may see it in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 49, 92.]
That was what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said.
The Government have come forward today with an Amendment which meets the points that were put 'with such heat and passion on that last occasion when we discussed the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the main challenge. He has met the challenge of bad faith and the challenge of the open cheque, because he has adopted and improved upon the very Amendment on which the Opposition laid such great stress on the last occasion. In putting forward my right hon. Friend's Amendment, we hope to write into the Bill the date of March, 1972, for the Boundary Commission. There is no blank cheque there. The date will be in.
In all the contributions to the debate, I have not heard one word in any of the speeches to which I have listened from the Opposition on the real arguments or the substance of the case put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. No hon. Member has seen fit to challenge him on his estimate of the 410 constituencies that will be affected by the Redcliffe-Maud Report. My right hon. Friend was asked to repeat his figures, but no serious argument has been put forward to dispute them, Sixty-five per cent. of constituencies would be affected by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals if they were to be implemented as at present understood. Surely, it cannot be argued that a responsible Government, faced with that sort of situation, should proceed as is suggested by the Opposition. As my right hon. Friend said, 94 per cent. of the constituencies would be divided by the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations into two or, perhaps, more of the recommended new unitary authorities.
The Opposition have not even tried to deal with those arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend. They have indulged in abuse and in silly jibes about gerrymandering. They have hurled across the accusation of cheats and cheating at hon Members on this side. One hon. Member opposite even described


the Home Secretary as a sordid man dealing with a sordid subject.
If that is the level of debate and contribution which the Opposition wish to bring to these great Parliamentary occasions described by the hon. Member for Canterbury when they are fighting for the rights of democracy and for the 700 years of history of parliamentary democracy, they should rise above the level of the gutter, although that level seems very often to suit the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. I would have hoped that some of his hon. Friends could at least have risen above his level in this matter.
I believe that any fairminded, unbiased observer not caught up in the desperate need that the Opposition have to create a "phoney" battle to try to inspire the tottering ranks of their supporters outside, who have been so shocked at the tremendous turn-round already in public opinion polls—an unbiased person not actuated by motives of that sort would at least have considered the case and dealt with the arguments which have been put put forward.
I should like to make a point which is purely personal. As a Member of the House and one who has had reasonable experience in local government—I put it no higher than that—I believe that it is highly desirable that local authority boundaries and the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies should, if humanly possible, bear a close relationship to each other. It is of immense value to a Member of Parliament to be able to deal with only one local authority in handling the many complaints and worries that come to him daily from his constituents concerning local authority activities.
One of the greatest blessings of London government reorganisation is that it gave me in my constituency only one local authority to deal with whereas before one had to deal with two local authorities. Of course, some other hon. Members have to deal with a much greater problem than that. Therefore, with the principle already accepted—it certainly has not been disputed—that local authority reorganisation should lead to a better relationship—if possible, a perfect relationship—between parliamentary constituencies and local authorities, now is

obviously not the time to change parliamentary boundaries, in the full knowledge that local authority boundaries are to be dealt with in the immediate future.
8.0 p.m.
Much has been said about the Home Secretary's duty and the exercise of his responsibilities. I want to ask whether Her Majesty's Opposition accept that it is the right of the Government, of whatever political complexion, to present legislation to change existing arrangements and laws. Of course they must agree that that is so. This is just what the Government have done, and what my right hon. Friend has done. He has said that the 1949 Act says that he has to do something now which any reasonable person can see is not sensible. It was not foreseen, when that Act was passed, that in 1969 we would receive the Redcliffe-Maud Report and would face a tremendous local government reorganisation in the next few years. Recognising this, the Home Secretary has laid legislation to improve the law. So there can be no substance in the charge that he has failed in his duty. He has not. He has followed the normal parliamentary process of presenting legislation to alter and amend previous legislation in the light of a current situation.
The Home Secretary has told the House that, if, as is Parliament's right—both this House and the other place—it rejects the Government's Amendments when the Bill goes back to the other place, he will lay the necessary Orders. So there is no failure of duty there. My right hon. Friend has said that as soon as Parliament—not he or the Government—has expressed a final decision in the two Chambers, he will not present another Bill, but will immediately do his duty under the existing law and lay the Orders. So there are no grounds for these base charges of breach of faith or dereliction of duty, cheating or gerrymandering which have been made against my right hon. Friend, the Government or hon. Members on this side.
In my view, and in the view of those who study this matter without bias, the Government have rightly entered upon a parliamentary procedure for amending the law. They are still hoping that this House and the other place will not act detrimentally to the 700 years of parliamentary democracy by rejecting a Bill


on the basis of an attack which is supported at this hour, just past eight o'clock, by only seven Members of the Conservative Party sitting opposite, which does not engender all that heat and passion, and which is nothing more than a "phoney" attempt by the Opposition to secure one or two cheap but silly party political points.
I am certain that, when the Division is called, all those hon. Members on this side, believing as I do that my right hon. Friend is justified, is acting honourably and has done his duty, will support the Bill in the Lobby, and that only those who believe that it is their job as an Opposition to misuse and abuse parliamentary time and procedure by engaging in this sort of phoney, stupid, ridiculous and scurrilous type of debate will be in the Lobby against the Government's proposal.

Captain Walter Elliot: I thought that this debate was a very serious and responsible one until the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), on one of his rare appearances, just managed to get up in time to be called and lowered the tone considerably——

Mr. Wellbeloved: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Captain Elliot: Not yet. I have only just started. I will give way in due course——

Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Member made an attack on me.

Captain Elliot: I was about to say——

Mr. Wellbeloved: I will match my record against the hon. and gallant Gentleman's any day.

Captain Elliot: If the hon. Member will contain himself, I will be very glad to give way in due course.
In fact, this debate has been very well attended. It is quite normal that at about half-past seven to a quarter past eight large numbers of hon. Members, from both sides, go out to an evening meal. The hon. Gentleman is not doing a service to the House as a whole by making those absurd accusations about this.
If the hon. Member had been listening to my right hon. and learned Friend the

Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), he would have heard him say that the Amendments introduced by the Government remove the charge of their taking an open cheque, but as the hon., Member went on to justify this change in the 1949 Act, I must confess it occurred to me that if his argument had substance there was no reason why we should have believed the Home Secretary when he said that he would reactivate the Boundary Commission in 1972. On that argument he may well come forward with another specious excuse for not doing so. Either the hon. Gentleman is very naїve as a politician, which I find difficult to accept—I do not think that any politician is naїve—or else he is as hypocritical as the rest——

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted to hear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's hon. Friends need so long for their dinner. I made a note at various times. At 6.30 there were 16 hon. Members opposite, at 7.30 there were ten, and now, at 8.10, there are seven. They do need a long dinner time, do they not?

Captain Elliot: That is a silly remark and I will not deal with it. However, I will take up one remark which the hon. Gentleman made. He said that the words used by my right hon. and learned Friend in accusing the Home Secretary of gerrymandering and then telling Ulster what it should do would be seized on by the extremists in Northern Ireland. I assure him that it will not be my right hon. and learned Friend's words which will be seized on: it will be the action of the Home Secretary in this House.
Whatever view of this Bill and these Amendments we take on both sides of the House, it will be generally agreed that the Home Secretary is taking a very serious step. The changing of electoral law, in whatever form, is a serious matter. This is not just an ordinary parliamentary Bill. It is a very sensitive subject, and it is fundamental to our democratic system. Therefore, I think that it is agreed that he is taking a very serious step in abdicating his responsibilities under the 1949 Act and safeguarding himself against action in legislation.
I have sat through most of the debate. I found it interesting to listen to the views of hon. Members opposite. Some tried to support their Front Bench by


arguing that the parliamentary boundaries should correspond with local government boundaries. Others argued on the ground of the upheaval which might be caused. Others took the view—and whether they know it or not they are supporting gerrymandering—that the present system gives a built-in advantage to the Conservative Party and that, therefore, it is proper for the Government to gerrymander with the Bill to put that right.
Hon. Members have accused us of not taking up any of the arguments which the Home Secretary advanced and of relying on abuse and slanging to support our case. I will take up some of the points which he made. He based his case on two grounds. The first was the vital importance of making sure that the boundary changes for the parliamentary constituencies corresponded with the Redcliffe-Maud Report's recommendations for the local government boundaries. The second was that a great upheaval might occur if we had boundary changes made too close together in time. Those are the two points on which his entire case rests.
May I consider them? First, which is the more important, parliamentary boundaries or local government boundaries? We all know that when reviewing parliamentary boundaries the Boundary Commission is instructed to take account of local government boundaries—but that is only one of the factors, and the Boundary Commission is certainly never instructed that local government boundaries should be the overriding factor. In my view there are more important factors, such as the population and the geographical area.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford made play of the difficulties of dealing with more than one local authority. I deal with four—the Sutton Borough Council, the Banstead Urban District Council, the Surrey County Council—because Banstead is in Surrey and Carshalton is in Sutton—and the Greater London Council. I find no difficulty in this at all. The only difference when one takes up the case of a constituent in a different local authority area is that the envelope bears a different address. Indeed, I find it most interesting to deal with these four authorities, from the

smallest, which is the urban district council, through Sutton Borough and Surrey County Council to the largest of all, the Greater London Council. I have never had any difficulties in it.
But whether that is so or not, the Boundary Commission is not instructed that the local government boundaries are the overriding factor. Since when has the constitution of the House waited on decisions about local government boundaries? That is an absurd proposition for the Home Secretary to put forward.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman's second argument concerned the great upheaval. He said—and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford said—that 410 constituencies would be affected. We know that. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford had listened to my right hon. and learned Friend opening the debate he would have heard him say that that is precisely why we think that the Parliamentary boundaries should be changed—because 410 boundaries need change. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) pointed out that if we waited several years longer all 630 would need changing. That shows how necessary these Boundary Commission recommendations are.
What is the great upheaval? I do not know why the word "upheaval" was used. Let us describe it as "a considerable change". I admit that to those concerned in the constituencies the change is considerable, but any change which I shall suffer—and I shall suffer if my constituency is cut in half, as is proposed—is not increased in the least if another 409 constituencies are also changed. I have to suffer no more upheaval and no more change irrespective of how many other constituencies are changed. Nor is the business of the country affected or hindered in the slightest by these constituency changes. Party organisations are affected and they have to reorient themselves to the new situation, and there is a lot of work to be done, but it hardly affects the everyday life of the country, and the business of the country goes on just the same.
The constitution of the House should not wait on the local government boundaries. Such change as takes place in sum may be great throughout the country, but


it is localised, and each locality is neither more nor less affected, however many other constituencies are changed.
In an issue as important as this in the House we should weigh our words very carefully before making accusations against right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I take that view particularly strongly about the Home Secretary. In the past I have paid him compliments, although I do not suppose that he wanted them; no doubt he could not have cared less. But I have paid him compliments when he was taking a firm line on problems about which I felt deeply.
In addition, if any hon. Member on any side of the House attacks, in particular, the office of the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary himself, in some way that weakens the Home Secretary's authority, which is a bad thing. When dealing with the Home Office and the Home Secretary one must weigh one's words extremely carefully. But the fact is that the supreme upholder of the law in this country, the Home Secretary, is shown up as a squalid political trickster. If the law puts him in the dock, then he changes the law. He is in a position to do so, and he takes advantage of it. To see the row of heads on the Front Bench opposite nodding in agreement with his hypocritical, sanctimonious ascertions I find sickening. What an example to the lawbreakers and the potential lawbreakers! They will salute him as a comrade in arms, and that is just what he deserves.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: I will not detain the House for long because I do not wish to go over many of the arguments that have been canvassed on this subject.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) was one of the few back benchers opposite to advance the Government Front Bench argument that local government reform is the reason for the Bill. A number of other, sometimes ingenious, arguments were advanced by other back benchers opposite, and I particularly liked the one adduced by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who said that it was giving votes to 18-year-olds that justified delaying the implementation of the Boundary Commission's proposals. That was a new and attractive argument which he sought to deploy effectively.
If the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford really believes that the Redcliffe-Maud Report is the reason for the action which the Government has taken, he must recognise that he is in a lonely position, for the Government have not attempted to persuade us or any independent opinion that this has been their motive. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the choice with which the Government would have been faced had they been considering, in the first place, whether or not to implement the Boundary Commission's recommendations, despite the fact that the Redcliffe-Maud Report was coming along at more or less the same time. The Government might have said, "We do not want to have too much upheaval. We do not want to see the boundaries being changed too frequently".
The Home Secretary claims that about 94 constituencies would, if the Redcliffe-Maud proposals were implemented, find themselves in more than one unitary authority. The Government might have argued that it would have been possible 10 years hence to see boundary redistribution in the light of local government reform. That would have meant a period of four years—on the most extreme assumption it would have been five years—in which hon. Members from 90 to 100 constituencies would have found themselves dealing with two unitary authorities, not an ideal situation because it is better to deal with one. But that was the price that would have had to be paid.
Can it really be said that that would have been worse for democracy than what the Government are now doing; that that would have been a less esirable course of action than to maintain a situation through the next election, and probably the one after that, in which there will be a large number of constituencies where one vote will count for the same as five, six or seven votes elsewhere? To believe that is a substantial feat indeed.

Mr. Wellbeloved: My right hon. Friend was being cautious. He is basing his estimate of 94 constituencies on the number of unitary authorities recommended by the majority report. I do not believe that we shall eventually arrive at that figure. It will probably be higher,


with many more than 94 constituencies being involved.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman's determination to accept the argument of his Front Bench is not convincing.
The vast majority of hon. Members, irrespective of party, know that the Redcliffe-Maud Report has virtually nothing to do with this proposal, and, as a number of journalists have suggested, the Government's likely decision on the Boundary Commission's recommendations was widely leaked before the excuse was thought up.
I congratulate the new Minister of State on her appearance on the Front Bench, though I am sorry to see an hon. Member who was responsible at the Department of Education and Science, and whose work has been widely admired, associated with a Bill of this kind. I am sorry not only because of the Measure itself, but because this action of the Government, once taken, has led the Labour Administration into a number of other undesirable decisions. One has been the decision to make a show of rushing along the Redcliffe-Maud proposals at maximum speed.
Local authorities and local authority associations have been asked to submit their views on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals by October of this year. This has been done solely because the Government want to give the impression that they will get legislation on the Redcliffe-Maud Report at breakneck speed so as to give themselves a chance to make a new reference to the Boundary Commission in the early 70s, and, possibly thereafter, to be able to implement further recommendations of the Boundary Commission before the General Election after next.
However, as Lady Sharp pointed out forcefully in the House of Lords, the cause of local government reform has been done no service by this sort of haste. Few people in Britain can claim the experience of local government and the same enthusiasm for local government reform as Lady Sharp. If anybody wants to get the Redcliffe-Maud proposals implemented quickly, and if anybody really knows about local government, such a person is Lady Sharp. Yet her advice is that if any attempt is made at

legislation inside three years—she puts that as the minimum—it is unlikely to be conducive to producing satisfactory local government reform. She goes on to suggest that the earliest year in which one could have reorganised parliamentary boundaries after local government reform is 1976–77. Therefore, as one interested in local government reform, I am sorry that this action by the Government has led them to show a haste on the Redcliffe-Maud proposals which is deeply resented by so many local authorities.
A second consequence of the Government's decision to gerrymander on these seats is the highly unsatisfactory and ill-thought-out proposals for change outside the London area. I will not dwell on this aspect, because I have deployed the case before, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) has described the kind of nonsense that would be created in his area by the Home Secretary's proposals. I therefore again ask the Home Office Ministers to look at the effects of the Home Secretary's proposals for West Sussex.
8.30 p.m.
The Boundary Commission proposes that four West Sussex constituencies should be created out of three. Those four constituencies would be of roughly equal size and their boundaries would respect natural geographical division. The Home Secretary's proposal, and this is one of those proposals very hurriedly dragged up to deal with the worst anomalies outside London, is that one constituency should be left alone and that three constituencies should be created out of two. The net result would be not four constituencies of roughly equal size and so drawn as to respect natural boundaries, but one constituency of over 100,000 electors by the early 'seventies and three constituencies of probably 65,000 electors. I suggest that this nonsense is the result of the Home Secretary's attempting to deal in an ad hoc way like this with individual constituencies outside the London area.
Today, we have had two further revelations from the Home Secretary which are rather breathtaking. The first is the promise that if another place refuses the right hon. Gentleman's present proposals there will be no boundary changes at all. This is an astonishing position for a Minister of the Crown to take up.


He has been arguing here that it is right that the Boundary Commission's proposals for London should be implemented. He has not said, "We do not mind doing this because it does not harm the Labour Party too much, so we are prepared to do it if you will let us get away with the rest of our proposals". What he has been saying is that it is right to implement the Boundary Commission's proposals for London, and that he believes that it is good for the electorate and makes sense. But he now says, "unless another place allows me to get away with the rest of my proposals, there will be no change in London". This is an astonishing attitude to be adopted by a Minister who has the responsibility for our electoral arrangements.
I must refer to the other revelation made by the Home Secretary today. He has told us that if another place throws out these proposals he will lay the Orders and then encourage his hon. Friends to vote against them—and, presumably, vote against them himself. This, even he must see, will look to people outside to be a pretty disreputable course of action for a Home Secretary to take. On a number of occasions during the Summer Recess I have watched on television the Home Secretary in Northern Ireland. I recognise that in this country the Home Secretary is concerned with law and order, but he must surely see that the remarks, at which he seemed to take offence, which were made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) have considerable weight. He must surely see that if he is prepared to behave in this way in the House of Commons his reputation outside it must suffer. The persuasive power he might have outside the House is bound to diminish.
We are given to understand that at the next election the Labour Party aims to claim that its intentions have always been pure. The other day I attended an advertising conference at which one of the Labour Party's advisers on publicity was justifying to the assembled gathering of advertising executives the slogan "Life and soul". To some doubting questioners he explained that the slogan had been very thoroughly tested and that it was the most effective. Then, just recently, there was a full page advertisement in The Times, bought, I believe for

about £2,000—which showed the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues, with the slogan, "Aren't their ideals the same as yours?". If the Government want to persuade the country that even though in achievement they do not have a great deal to show, their intentions have always been of the best, I cannot think that they are setting about it very effectively with this Bill. So far from demonstrating ideals that the country could share, their actions in this matter have been some of the scruffiest of recent times.

Mr. David Mitchell: I join in this debate more in sorrow than in anger. There must inevitably be in our political system an enormous temptation for any party in power to wish and to try if it has the opportunity to perpetuate itself in office. Therefore, it is the more important that our electoral system should be above party, and seen to be above party.
By our electoral system I mean the machinery by which Members arrive here. As a comparatively new Member, I understand that it was for this reason that my parliamentary forebears removed from the party the decision as to Parliamentary boundaries. They provided that instead of the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Party or whatever party happened to be in power having the opportunity to rig the parliamentary boundaries to its advantage, the temptation would be removed. They provided that by having an independent Boundary Commission. It therefore seems quite clear that the whole feeling, tradition and purpose on which our system is based is that the umpire, the independent Commission, should decide the parliamentary boundaries and that decision should be free from party politicians' opportunities.
It must be right that there should be these changes in parliamentary boundaries at comparatively regular and not too long intervals. Basingstoke is an overspill town. We receive a large number of people from London both in Basingstoke and Andover. They come from London constituencies, which are shrinking, to Basingstoke, where the population is now 83,000 and next year will be in the region of 92,000 and the year after about 100,000. Therefore, it must be statistically true that one vote in Basingstoke will be the equivalent of a number of votes elsewhere. This clearly


is not a desirable situation. To correct the situation the Boundary Commission produced proposals which would take Andover Rural District area away from Basingstoke and put it with Winchester.
Many years ago the village of Whit-church in Hampshire used to return two Members of Parliament. It was known in those days as one of the rotten boroughs. I do not think the present Minister of State will feel cheerful at the Dispatch Box tonight defending a situation which would preserve rotten boroughs to the advantage of one party and in which politicians would take the decision rather than the independent umpire.
Two excuses have been advanced for doing this. The first is that of Maud. The suggestion that Members of Parliament are not sufficiently intelligent to discern which local authorities their constituents are covered by is not worthy of consideration. I deal with five local authorities—Basingstoke Borough Council, Andover Borough Council, Basingstoke Rural District Council, Andover Rural District Council and Kingsclere and Whitchurch Rural District Council. I have no difficulty in writing to the correct local authority when a constituent raises a problem with me which is not a parliamentary one but which concerns a local authority. If I found that the unitary authority boundary were to be through the middle of my constituency, it would not end my ability to aid those constituents. The suggestion that somehow local authority boundaries are the most important basis on which Members of Parliament should be elected—the very essence of our parliamentary democracy—is so ludicrous that I am surprised that hon. Members opposite have advanced it.
Apart from that, there is no certainty that the Maud proposals will become law. In my area there is considerable misgivings about whether it is right to apply the Maud proposals to Hampshire and bring that great county to an end. There is doubt as to whether there would be legislation along the lines proposed by Redcliffe-Maud. We are being told that the Government cannot or will not implement the findings of the Boundary Commission because of some possible legis-

lation which may or may not go on to the Statute Book in two years' time.
The second argument is that of the supremacy of Parliament. The Secretary of State said that if the House of Lords refused to change its view on his proposed legislation he would lay the Orders and urge his hon. Friends to vote against them. That would be a pitiable position for the Minister responsible for law and order to place himself in. He would lay the Orders, as the law requires him to do, and then with his tongue in his cheek persuade his hon. Friends to vote against them. I do not think that the many people who have watched, as I have, with considerable support, praise and respect the way in which the Secretary of State has behaved on Northern Ireland—the very high standard of ideals that he has accepted and the basis on which he has chosen to stand—will have anything like the respect for the attitude he is adopting in this case. He is seeking deliberately to flout the conventions—to reject the independent umpire and replace him with a party formula. I do not believe that the traditions of the House or of parliamentary democracy are assisted by such a squalid attitude.

Mr. Speed: I endorse everything that has been said from these benches. Today the Secretary of State adopted his Mr. Hyde attitude rather than his Dr. Jekyll attitude. On Northern Ireland he is all sweetness and rectitude. I pay my tribute to him for that. I, like other Members, have been to Northern Ireland during the Recess. I pay my tribute to the excellent work the Secretary of State has been doing and is doing to try to calm that troubled Province.
But the right hon. Gentleman is completely undermining his position by persisting with this squalid Bill and these squalid Amendments to the Lords Amendments. As I understood him, he advanced two main arguments for asking the House to resist the Lords Amendments. His first argument was that it is wrong to keep having these changes of constituency, these redistribution problems. His second argument was the imperative and over-riding factor of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals.
8.45 p.m.
On the movement question, what the right hon. Gentleman seems to be incapable of seeing—although, as he is not a stupid man, I suspect that he can see it but is deliberately obscuring the fact from the House—is that we are having these changes because people are moving around the country. This is in direct line with the present Government's policy and the policy of the previous Government. We have a great scheme for a new city of 250,000 people at Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire. That is shortly to get off the ground. That means that many people will be moving into Buckinghamshire. Is it suggested that the Buckingham constituency should grow to 350,000 in size before anybody does anything about it? If the Bill in its unamended form goes through, the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office will be lucky because her constituency will be chopped about a bit. More important, her constituents will be lucky because they will be sharing two or three Members of Parliament instead of one. No matter how hard she works, they are under-represented in this House at the moment.
The same is true of many other hon. Members and their constituents who do not happen to have fallen into that bracket. There is not just Milton Keynes. There are such places as Telford, Leyland, Skelmersdale, Runcorn and in my constituency we have overspill developments at Chelmsley Wood, Tamworth, a new town at Redditch and another in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance). All these places will be growing and exploding in the next 10 years.
Does anybody seriously suggest that when we have completed this next redistribution we can close the shutters and do nothing for a further 15 or 20 years? If so, we shall be in the same situation in 10 or 15 years' time as we are now. That is why I believe that Parliament, in its wisdom, in 1958 decided that the period should be a maximum of 15 years and a minimum of 10 years. If we had a period of 10 years, far from having the great upsets that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others spoke of, we should have the minimum of upset because we could foresee what would happen and we should be engaging in comparatively minor altera-

tions instead of this great alteration of 410 constituencies. We have this great alteration because we are now working on 15-year-old boundaries. I hope the Government will address themselves to that point because the impression seems to be going about that whatever happens next time will be a once-for-all operation. I believe that is far from the truth.
The second argument relates to the good old question of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. I have been consulting the local authorities in my constituency, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), I have many local authorities in my constituency. I have problems dealing with five counties and county boroughs, two boroughs, some rural districts and 42 parish councils. But I am still here and I keep going.
When I met these local authority representatives during the recess I found—and I am sure that other West Midland Members can bear this out—that in its present form the Redcliffe-Maud Report is unacceptable to many of the local authorities and many constituents as well. My view is that the Report should be seen as a catalyst towards local government reform rather than as a blueprint. The trouble is that the Government are taking it as a blueprint and the local authorities take it as a catalyst. Unless the Government have completely made up their mind, in which case all consultation with local authorities is a waste of time, it seems to me that we cannot call in aid the Redcliffe-Maud recommendations.
Let us look at the question of timing. Suppose we accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposals and let us say that in April, 1972, the Boundary Commission starts to do its work again. Let us assume that it takes up to four years; it must take no more than four years, I understand. We find ourselves, at the beginning of 1976, with a new set of boundary proposals.
We could have an election at any time, but let us say that there is an election in 1970 and then another one in 1975, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that boundary proposals are implemented at the following General Election rather than at intervening by-elections. Let us say that the proposals come forward in 1976. They


might not be implemented until a General Election in 1979 or 1980. I believe that to be correct, if I read the Home Secretary's Amendment aright, and, no doubt, I shall be corrected if I am wrong. It may be said that I have taken the longest end of the scale, but I believe what I have said to be correct. The consequences of that course of events will have profound implications.
I do not wish to bore the House with my own constituency affairs, but they will give some idea of the position, and, no doubt, others could provide similar examples. Round about 1978 or 1979, before the General Election, my electorate, excluding votes at 18, will be between 180,000 and 190,000. Does any hon. Member justify such an electorate? If anyone does, he should say so, and he will be entitled to vote for the Government's Amendment. I cannot accept that it can be justified. I have given just one example, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and many others on both sides could give roughly comparable figures.
This situation comes about because of the factors which I have instanced, the great movements of population, the move from the cities to overspill areas, and so on. I am pleased to see here the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawler). Many of the people who have been living in his constituency are now coming to my constituency at Chelmsley Wood, which is as it should be, because they are moving into brand new homes out of poor and substandard homes. This is going on all over the country, in the big cities and elsewhere. The Prime Minister himself knows about it, representing as he does the constituency of Huyton, with its great overspill from Liverpool.
It is plain from the figures that the right hon. Gentleman is giving us no compromise at all. Quite the contrary, It may be dressed up as compromise, as half a loaf being better than no bread, but for me and my constituents and for many others there is not one crumb of comfort in that half loaf.
I put one other question to the Minister. Let us take what the right hon. Gentleman said and assume that the other place still rejects the Bill. The right hon.

Gentleman will then lay the Orders before the House and advise his hon. Friends to vote against them. I shall be interested to see how some of my near neighbours react to that. For example, the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer runs down to the Chelmsley Wood area. There is a strong feeling among people in Chelmsley Wood and my constituency already that they are under-represented. They say that this is no personal reflection upon me, but they feel that, with the constituency as large as it is now, they are entitled to additional Members of Parliament. I shall be interested to see how the consciences of hon. Members opposite can be squared with voting against the Orders.
There is a point of more importance than that. If the Orders are laid—accepting this hypothetical situation as it appears at the moment, though it may become practical—I presume that we go back to square 1 and work under the terms of the 1949 Act. Section 2(3) of the Act provides for interim reports and assessments by the Boundary Commissions on exceptionally large constituencies. That will still hold. Does the right hon. Gentleman then say that if, as it has intimated in its report, the Boundary Commission in such a constituency as mine, because of the quite exceptional circumstances, came forward with an interim report under Section 2(3), he would again resist it and advise his hon. Friends to resist it? This point should be cleared up. It is consequential upon what the right hon. Gentleman said in his opening speech today.
In all I have said on this subject—from time to time I have been consulted by the B.B.C. and others because my constituency is particularly large—I have always taken the line, before the Boundary Commission's Report came out, that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it, no matter what the political consequences might be. I think it regrettable that one should draw in the question of the Bill assisting the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or anyone else, but, whatever the political consequences, I have said that what was important was that the right hon. Gentleman should act on the report because these proposals are basically in the interest of the electorate. They should not be in the interests of one party or another. They should certainly not be


in the interests of the officers who have to deal with these matters, because of the administrative set-up. Having spoken to returning officers from different parts of the country, I am clear that they can cope. They and their staff have no problems, though they will meet all sorts of problems with the votes-at-18 register. They make no complaint, and we should make no complaint in Parliament.
It is our constituents who will be affected by the Measure. That is the point that should be drummed home to the country. It is they who in many instances will be under-represented, no matter how hard the Member may work. One could argue that it is not fair on the individual Member, but that is a subordinate argument.
With great knowledge of the problems—and not doubt her own constituents may have made representations to her—the hon. Lady will, I hope, bear these points very much in mind. Even at this late stage it is not too late for the right hon. Gentleman to discard Hyde and return to Jekyll. But if he persists tonight in pressing his Amendments through, he will have demeaned himself, his Government and the great Department he represents.

Mr. Lawler: Many hon. Members opposite have shown some resentment over the base imputations made against the Home Secretary and the Government. Listening throughout this long debate to some hon. Members on this side of the House, I have tried to have the pious hope that all their declarations were motivated by a desire to see the machinery of the electoral system working as it should, and not by an political advantages that might accrue to them if the boundaries were changed in time for the next General Election.
One should always take great care in making imputations. We had an excellent example from the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), when he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) had made a sudden departure from the Chamber after contributing to the debate. My hon. Friend had merely gone to sign the large number of letters he has to send to constituents who have written to him. It will interest my hon. Friend to know that the imputation was made by the hon. Member for Gosport and

Fareham, who himself left the Chamber almost immediately after making his speech. But that is by the way. I merely point out that one should be careful about imputations which may within a few minutes be rightly directed against oneself.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made imputations against some Liberals. He spoke about our new attitude towards another place. I have very definite conclusions about the other place, and so have my colleagues. We also have very definite conclusions about the present electoral system. But whilst it exists—and this the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale does not seem to understand—we shall respect it. One would wish that he would do so as well. And whilst the other place remains a lawful institution we shall observe its right to apply certain laws. There is nothing there to disturb certain Liberals who have passed on from the rest they are having in their graves, away from this unfortunate political life.
I want to turn to a point that I hope the Home Secretary or the Minister winding up will be able to clear up. I can see no justification for delaying the redistribution of seats because of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. The Bill has been available to the Government since April. The Redcliffe-Maud Report was published on 15th June this year. It is well know that during July, August and September most local authorities and their representatives are substantially inoperative. These are regarded as the holiday periods. Indeed, some local authorities, including the large local authority to which I belong, do not hold their monthly meetings then because most members are not available. It is an accepted fact——

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Elysian Morgan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lawler: —although the Minister may shake his head. I am most perturbed to note that a Report published on 15th June, 1969, one of tremendous magnitude not only to members of local authorities but to all the electors, should have a time schedule for consideration put upon it. It is obvious that the imputations and complaints made today will continue inside and outside the House if a more satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming from the Government about their real reasons for wanting to


delay the implementation of the boundary changes.
Few of us want to see the Redcliffe-Maud proposals bulldozed through the House, yet many people in the country have expressed to me and, I suppose, to other hon. Members their fears that, because of the Government's apparent anxiety to delay the passage of the boundary proposals through Parliament, the Redcliffe-Maud Report may indeed not receive all the consideration it should.
One can point at once to one thing which has almost happened. The electors have not yet been given an opportunity as electors to consider the all-important points of the Redcliffe-Maud Report. It is not sufficient for me merely to accept the Home Secretary's statement today that the need for local government reform has been recognised for many years. I agree with that statement, but it does not alter the fact that the major proposals of a highly controversial character, which seek to reform local government to take away certain basic rights enjoyed by individuals at local level, and which will obviously need a great deal of thought, were published on 15th June, but that the electors have not had a proper opportunity to have meetings with their representatives, both at local and, one would hope, at national level, in order to express their views. Yet these are the people to whom the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seems to have attached such importance when he talked of the relationship between an M.P. and the electorate.
A little more thought should be given to the dual danger which seems to be arising of not only sabotaging the Redcliffe-Maud Report but also rushing through a Measure that will inflict still more harm on the electors in general. I hope that the Government will give a positive assurance that there will be no attempt of any kind to hurry through for party political reasons these important local government proposals.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks a little more precisely to the Lords Amendments which the House is discussing.

Mr. Lawler: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am relating what

I have just said to the extensive remarks of the Home Secretary in opening the debate and, indeed, within the terms of which you have just reminded me. The right hon. Gentleman said that the existence of the Redcliffe-Maud Report had a great deal to do with the decisions he conveyed to the House today.
There is a danger that if the present Report of the Boundary Commission is left unimplemented, we shall go as long as 30 years between the last revision and the next. I agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) that this has grave implications. He spoke about his constituency and its many electors. Mine has perhaps the smallest number. If I wanted to employ political expediency, I might have good reason for supporting much of what the Home Secretary said, but it would be wrong for the electors and for the electoral system. There is obviously a need to relate the gross lack of representation in areas like Meridan—and that is without reflection on the hon. Member—and the over-representation which seems to apply in several numerically small constituencies.
I was more than a little perturbed when I heard the Home Secretary say that if things went a certain way in another place, he would present some draft Orders to the House but take no steps to see that they were implemented. There is a big difference between allowing a free vote and failing to advise the House when an important neutral Commission has made recommendations on which it has spent many years and which are of considerable magnitude and whose implementation throughout the country is long overdue. This is a grave matter which should give deep concern to every hon. Member.
When the Home Secretary was speaking, I was reminded of someone suggesting that he should buy an expensive horse, put a costly saddle and bridle on it, lead it over a long distance to water but, instead of allowing it to drink, chuck it in and drown it. That seems to be the analogy of the Home Secretary's suggestion this afternoon of what would be his final step if everything else failed.
I should like the Home Secretary to put up a much stronger and more genuine case which could be considered by the electors and which would have


some definite basic points instead of the extremely weak argument that the Redcliffe-Maud Report is a reason for delaying implementation of the present proposals of the Boundary Commission. It is considerably important that we have an assurance before the debate is concluded that there will be no attempt of any kind to rush through the important proposals for local government reform.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Lawler) has not fully understood what has been happening in his own party over the past few years. He says that the Liberal Party's position over the House of Lords is perfectly clear. I am delighted to hear it, because it is news to me.

Mr. Lawler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No.

Mr. Lawler: On a point of order——

Mr. Heffer: It is not a point of order. The hon. Member will have to learn about debates in this House, as I had to.

Mr. Lawler: I did not say that. I said "Liberals" not "Liberal Party".

Mr. Heffer: I do not mind. We had the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) supporting the Government and the Opposition Front Bench when they attempted to bring a Bill to the House to which most backbenchers objected; he supported the White Paper and went right down the line on it, while other Liberals in the House opposed it, together with the rest of the backbenchers. So the Liberals are perfectly clear? Apparently they could not agree among themselves. The hon. Member must learn something about his own party.
Earlier today his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) spoke. I always listen with great interest to him because he makes a fine contribution, although I do not always agree with him. He was asking about the rights of the other place. My hon. Friends had to point out to him that nowadays the Liberals were supporting something which in the past they had totally rejected.
The Bill of 1911 was introduced by the Liberal Party, and its Preamble made

it clear that it was but a step forward to the ultimate abolition of the House of Lords. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Member, but I want to point out on this matter that the Liberals are as confused today about this as on any other subject. I am not saying that they are the only party which has differences internally, but I am saying that the hon. Member for Ladywood must not come to this House and suggest that the Liberals have a clear point of view. Most of what he said was totally irrelevant to the disctrision—[Interruption.] The hon. Member must learn that in this House we have the cut and thrust of debate. We are not in the Birmingham City Council, or even the Liverpool City Council.
9.15 p.m.
I have heard phrases bandied round about the unconstitutional measures that the Government are taking. I cannot see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary living up to the pictures being built up of him. He is a pretty law-abiding fellow, on some things a bit too law-abiding, but that is a personal opinion. I sometimes think he does not go far enough. The whole country will recognise that a more law-abiding, sensible and conservative Home Secretary we have never before had. This is well known, and yet he is being built up as a terrible monster who wants to undermine the constitution. I have never heard anything more ridiculous in my life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred in his excellent speech to an article by Mr. David Butler in the Sunday Times. I remembered that article and I hastened to get a copy to refresh my memory as to what Mr. Butler had said. He starts his article, in the Sunday Times of 20th July, 1969, in this way:
 'Unconstitutional is a term applied in politics to the other fellow who does something that you don't like.' 
That was Sir Austen Chamberlain's remark in the House of Commons in 1932. Mr. Butler says that this has been brought very much to mind by the current furore over boundaries. He goes on to say:
I care very much about decency and public life—but I cannot get very indignant either about the Redistribution of Seats Bill or about the Lords' decision to pursue wrecking tactics.


He goes on to say in this interesting article:
If today the Conservatives were at a serious disadvantage under the electoral system I would willingly man the constitutional barricades to protest against a Government trying to keep itself in office by refusing to amend an unfair system. But that is not the case. … Throughout the 1950s they"—
that is the Conservatives—
needed about 2 per cent, fewer of the votes than Labour to win any given number of seats. (In 1951, indeed, Labour won almost 1 per cent. more of the votes than the Conservatives, yet were comfortably beaten in terms of seats.)
Mr. Butler concludes:
If the Boundary Commission proposals were carried out in full it is quite clear that the Conservatives would be assured of a Parliament majority even if Labour had 1 per cent. more of the popular vote. Plainly we arc not confronted with the situation of a ruthless and cynical government loading the dice in its own favour".
He says something rather uncomplimentary about the Government in the next sentence, but it is fair to quote it:
At worst what we have is a rather bumbling government finding an excuse not to load the dice in favour of the Opposition".
Mr. Butler is a very learned gentleman in these matters. Yet we hear all this nonsense about what the Government are doing being unconstitutional.
9.15 p.m.
The idea that the centres of our cities will remain precisely as they are over the next ten years is utterly ridiculous. Only last week a decision was taken by the Liverpool City Council, practically unanimously—perhaps the Liberals objected—to rebuild the city centre by building flats and houses. The area, depleted over a period of years, will be filled up again. This is a point which must be taken into consideration. Yet hon. Members opposite wish us to rush in and make boundary changes and not wait for the implementation of the Maud Report and then in a few years' time make another change. What a waste of money that would be! It would be utterly ridiculous. The only reason why they say this is that they want to give the people the impression that we are a bunch of bounders trying to change the constitution and ensure a permanent Labour majority. There will be a Labour majority whether we have this Bill or not because the people of the country will return us to office at the next General

Election. Despite all their efforts, hon. Members opposite will not get anywhere with their line of argument.
I wish to refer to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), of whom, as I have said before, I think very highly. I am sorry that he has decided not to stand at the next election because he is a very fine Member. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I would have notified him of what I wish to say, but I will not attack him. When the Boundary Commission came to Liverpool, the proposal was that the town of Kirby, which has a very large Labour electorate—and, incidentally, at the moment a majority of Liberal councillors—was to be merged with Ormskirk. The screams of the hon. Member for Ormskirk could be heard throughout Merseyside. He said, "I do not want that in my town". Now, of course, he is leaving the House and I believe that he is standing on what is for him a matter of principle. It is strange how, when people think that they are personally involved, they can have one attitude at one moment but another attitude at another moment. I will draw the lesson, as I think the House will do, that people are very strange indeed.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not continue with the suggestion that the Home Secretary and the Government are trying to gerrymander and are unconstitutional. Nothing is further from the truth, and I hope that the House will hear no more of that sort of suggestion.

Sir D. Renton: It is again a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), as I did only last night. The hon. Member will remember that on that occasion we were discussing civil rights, and it must not be forgotten that we have been doing precisely the same again today. The hon. Member said that the party opposite would win the next General Election whether the Bill were passed or not. Those, of course, were the brave sort of words that the party opposite used when we were reorganising London government, but those words were not fulfilled and we won control of the Greater London Council.
I understood that the hon. Lady the Minister of State, Home Office, would be winding up the debate.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I shall be replying.

Sir D. Renton: That is also a pleasure. Perhaps we shall have the pleasure of hearing the hon. Lady, whom we congratulate on her appointment, on another occasion.
This debate has ranged round broadly three issues: first, whether the Lords were constitutionally justified in amending the Bill; secondly, whether their Amendments were fair and workable; and thirdly, whether the Government Amendments are fair and workable. I propose to summarise the position on each of those three issues.
First, were the Lords constitutionally justified? Nobody has doubted that they had complete power to do what they did. Although some hon. Members have complained that they used that power, nobody can allege that they abused it. Indeed, the mere fact that the Government themselves have made a major departure from the Bill as a result of the Amendments proposed by the Lords justifies, I suggest, the action which the Lords took.
An overwhelming mass of uncommitted opinion was against the Bill by the time it left this House and went to the Lords, and by the time it left the Lords the Government obviously realised that they had made a mistake in introducing the Bill in its original form. It was not the first time that they had made such a mistake this Session. It is abundantly clear, and we have not had much dispute about it, that the Lords had power to act as they did and were justified in doing so. There is no suggestion of Lords against people. It is more a question of the Government against the Lords and the people.
I come to the question of whether the Lords Amendments were fair and workable. Although the Lords could have rejected the Bill altogether on Second Reading, they did not do that. They gave the Government an opportunity of putting forward different proposals from those in the Bill and of doing so by 31st March next year. That means that the Government have, from now, nearly six months, until All Fools' Day, to make up their mind to act fairly and constitutionally. Meanwhile, of course, under the Lords Amendments, the Secretaries of State would be protected from the consequences of their failure to comply with

the law enshrined in the Acts of 1949 and 1958, which the original Bill did not do.
In Committee in the Lords, the then Minister of State, Lord Stonham, said that the Lords Amendments were a Parliamentary abortion. I should have thought that those who favoured abortion would agree that parliamentary abortion would be better than producing a constitutionally unwanted and monstrous child. but of course what the Lords did was not an abortion at all. It was a delicate pre-natal operation so that the Bill would be slimmer and less of a monster. The Lords have given the Government the opportunity to act honourably and fairly, and I believe that most people in the country, outside the Labour Party, would consider the Government very foolish to refuse this opportunity.
The Government Amendments are only a slight improvement on the original Bill. They would mean that we would probably have more up-to-date constituency boundaries by 1976 at the latest, instead of by 1983 at the latest—an improvement of seven years. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone Mr. Hogg) has said, that is a licence to cheat at the next General Election—and possibly even thereafter, if by gerrymandering or other political turpitude, the Government were somehow to win the next election.
But let us consider the time scale, because the Home Secretary got it wrong. If one thinks back on his speech, the facts which he put forward to justify the Government's action are, when taken together, facts which condemn the Government's action and which would make it highly desirable that the Boundary Commission proposals introduced this year should be implemented as soon as possible.
The present constituency boundaries—this factor has been forgotten too easily by hon. Members opposite—are based on the electorate as it was in 1953, and it has increased greatly since then. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friends with forcible examples on this and previous occasions, many constituencies are swollen to such an extent that much more should he done about them than is done by Clause 3. But 1953 is the basic year, because that is the year on


which the Boundary Commission reporting in 1954 acted and it is its Report which came into effect in time for the 1955 General Election and on which the General Elections of 1959, 1964 and 1966 were also fought—the position as it was in 1953.
The Home Secretary seems quite satisfied that the next General Election should also take place on the basis of the 1953 position, at least 17 years later and possibly, if this Parliament runs its full time, 18 years later. His speech today reminded me that today is the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. To fight the next General Election on the 1953 position would be little better than using Domesday Book for guidance.
What about the local government time-scale, on which the Government rely entirely in their attempt to justify what they propose? The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland stated emphatically today that there will be no legislation to reorganise local government in England or in Scotland, following the Redcliffe-Maud and Wheatley Reports, in this Parliament. That is not surprising, because the changes proposed are far-reaching.
But the changes proposed for Wales in a White Paper announced as long ago as 1967—which was before the Boundary Commission and is referred to in paragraph 21 of the Boundary Commission for Wales—are much less far-reaching and could easily be implemented without risk of later upheaval. May I take the case of the Home Secretary's constituency—Cardiff, South-East. At the moment half of it is in the city of Cardiff and half of it is outside the city of Cardiff. If the Boundary Commission's recommendations were accepted it would be entirely within the city. The right hon. Gentleman is so accustomed to being half in and half out that perhaps he prefers the present position.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the rest of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech is not as inaccurate as that. The whole of my constituency, every single bit of it, is inside the city of Cardiff.

Sir D. Renton: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I take full responsibility for what I said, but it will become clear to him that I have been misinformed

[Laughter]. It gives me great pleasure to apologise to him, without in any way altering my argument. Indeed, it may be said that the fact that his constituency is not affected should make us all the more eager to implement the proposals of the Boundary Commission for Wales. As I pointed out just before the right hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, paragraph 21 of the Report makes it clear that the Boundary Commission for Wales knew the position with regard to Wales and were able to take into account to a considerable extent——

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is still incorrect—[Laughter]. My constituency is very substantially affected by the Report, which I am told would make it even safer than it is now.

Sir D. Renton: I accept the intervention once more, but I will not be diverted from the very strong case—[Laughter.] which I intend to deploy by a slip which I have made on a matter of relative detail. [Laughter.] I do not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is getting too good-humoured.

Sir D. Renton: You may rely on me, Mr. Speaker, to do something about that.
Even if all three Bills reorganising local government were introduced early in the next Parliament, in one Session—which is unthinkable—it would take the best part of a Session for them to go through Parliament. Then, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, there would be a time lag between Royal Assent and the time when the new local government boundaries became effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) relied on the statements made by Lady Sharp, who said that there would be several years between the Royal Assent and the actual coming into force of the now local government boundaries. Thus, combining the Parliamentary Boundary Commission's time-scale and the local government time-scale, we reach certain conclusions. The first is that the Parliamentary boundaries, which are already seriously out of date and, accordingly, distorted, will become even more distorted if the Government Amendments


are accepted. The second is that the local government boundaries will not be finally changed until the mid 'seventies. The third is that if the Boundary Commissions are reactivated in 1971 or 1972 or even before then, as the Government propose, the new local government boundaries will still not be in operation by the time the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions are reactivated, with the result that the Boundary Commissions will have to wait a year or two before being able really to get on with their work of considering the effect of local government reorganisation on the Parliamentary boundaries.
This means that they will not be able to report until 1974 or 1976, which is waiting much too long. It also means that between 21 and 23 years will have elapsed between effective general reviews of the parliamentary boundaries; that is, since Parliament, with the agreement of all parties and following the emphatic statements of the present Secretary of State for Scotland in 1958, when he was on the side of the angels, agreed that the time between should be only 15 years. If this is not unconstitutional behaviour, I do not know what is. It most unfairly distorts the position and rights of the voters in the constituencies most affected.
It would be more efficient, more democratic and more fair to bring into operation now, at once, the changes which the Boundary Commission recently recommended, and then have a fresh general review, which could be initiated at the earliest, as required at present, in 1979. That would have the great advantage that by then all the local government boundaries would have been finally settled and might have been settled for a year or two. This is so obviously plainly right and fair that the worse possible assumption must be made about the Government's refusal to do it.
We feel that we would be fully justified in having three Divisions tonight—indeed, several more than that—on the Amendments, both of the Lords and of the Government. We believe that the Government should accept the Lords proposal with gratitude and drop their own. If they do not, then we will vote for the Lords on the second and third Amendments and, if necessary, vote against the Home Secretary's principal Amendment.
The Home Secretary did something quite unprecedented today when he said

that if the Lords reject the Bill as amended by the Government Amendments he would lay draft Orders in Council before this House but that he would arrange for those Orders to be rejected.

Mr. Callaghan: Really!

Sir D. Renton: That is what it came to. If he did not mean that, he should say so.
It is clear that the Government have a cynical threat to lay Orders in Council and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) pointed out, to get the Patronage Secretary to put on the Whips so that they are rejected, making the work of the Boundary Commissions of no avail.
The House can interpret the right hon. Gentleman's motives either as blackmail, as was said by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), or as a way of saving his skin when the matter comes up, as I understand it will, before the High Court next Monday for his failure so far to comply with the law. Either way, it is a cynical distortion of his constitutional duty, and we are entitled to know more precisely than we have so far been told how the Government propose to conduct themselves in this matter.
Do they propose to lay four Orders, one for each of the four parts of the United Kingdom: in other words, covering each of the four Boundary Commission reports? Or do they intend to give hon. Members an opportunity of voting in detail on these Orders? Of course, either way it could be said that the chaos would be incalculable and that it would be far better to follow the precedents which give hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of considering the position, taking note of it and acting in accordance with what they think is right. In any event, we are entitled to know, the country is entitled to know, and the Lords are entitled to know what kind of cynicism underlies this threat, and exactly how the Government intend to behave.
Today we have been discussing civil rights, but this Bill, even as proposed for amendment by the Home Secretary, is conclusive proof that the Government consider Socialism to be more important than democracy. It is also proof that the Government do not expect to win the


next General Election by fair means but are hell bent on winning it somehow. No one outside the Socialist Party approves of the Bill or wants it. Indeed, no one wants it except the frightened men and women on the benches opposite and, most of all, the Prime Minister, who, no doubt, when he saw the Boundary Commission's proposal for Huyton, must have uttered his words of undying resolution. "Over my dead body".

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Previously, the House has devoted some 30 hours to dealing with the issues involved in the Bill. Today, during a further five hours, the Opposition have ranted in undiminished fury and have seen fit to level charges and condemnations that we have heard on very many occasions. It could fairly be said of them that they set themselves rather low standards and then failed to maintain them. The only relief in this very repetitive performance was the broad, boyish grin on the face of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) which belied to many of us the extreme gravity of the indictments he laid at the Government's door.
Before turning to the general issues, I want to comment briefly on one or two specific matters raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) asked what would be the effect of adopting the Parliament Act procedure in the event of the Bill being rejected in another place. If the Bill were to receive Royal Assent under the Parliament Act procedure new constituencies for parliamentary elections would come into being one month after the Royal Assent. However, the Royal Assent would not be in time for the ordinary G.L.C. elections of 1970, but would be in time for those of 1973.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that it was within the power of the Government to introduce an Order now to deal with constituencies in Greater London. As has been explained in our earlier debates, because seven constituencies straddle the Greater London boundary it would be necessary for the Order to contain departures from the recommendations of the Boundary Com-

mission. Otherwise parts of those seven constituencies which lie outside the Greater London boundary would not be contained in any parliamentary constituency. In other words, the minimum modification of the Boundary Commission's recommendations are those which are contained in the Bill. However, as we understand it the Opposition, both here and in another place, are not in favour of these departures from the recommendations, and for an Order setting up new constituencies in Greater London the approval of both Houses would be needed. If they are saying that there would be no difficulty in securing this, we would be very interested to hear their attitude to such a provision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would it not also be in the power of the Home Secretary to lay an Order applying both the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in respect of Greater London and the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in respect of areas adjoining Greater London?

Mr. Morgan: No, I think that complicated legal issues are involved in this matter turning on Section 2 of the Act of 1949. I am sorry that it is not possible for me to go into great detail on this at the moment.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) said that it was monstrous that in some constituencies it took five times the number of votes to elect a Member of Parliament compared with other constituencies with only a very small electorate. This is something of which we are all aware. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that complete arithmetical equality cannot be achieved. I think it proper to remind the House that the proposals of the Boundary Commission for England contain recommendations for constituencies which in some cases are nearly two-and-a-half times the size of smaller constituencies. Of course we all agree that it would be ideal if we were able to achieve complete equality in all the constituencies of the United Kingdom. In so far as it is possible and compatible with the principle of the weighting of representation in rural areas, this is something to strive for, but in striving for such a standard, of course, it is possible to come up against greater evils. That is the heart


and kernel of the Government's case tonight.
The charge has been put to us by the Opposition, in the most shrill and emotive terms, of cheating. We are told that we are acting contrary to the most fundamental constitutional principles in order to obtain a clear but unfair constitutional advantage. I quite agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that cheating is the term the Tories apply to a situation when there is the slightest danger of acting contrary to the deepest canons of Conservative faith; namely, their divine right to exercise power in this place for all time. That is "cheating", and it is on that basis that the accusation has been made against the Government.
I do not doubt the sincerity of their belief in the number of seats that would be affected, but I challenge its accuracy. None of the conjectures which have been made throughout our debates about the number of seats that would be affected rests upon any authoritative data. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) quoted a very distinguished authority to the contrary.
Even if there were such data, even if the very size of a windfall could be calculated, the issue still would not be whether it was right for a Government to accept such a windfall or to abjure it. The issue before the House is whether, irrespective of loss or gain, irrespective of any fortuitous advantage to either party, it is right to allow the machinery which was created in 1949 to run. I agree that, all things being equal, it is fair and proper that that machinery should be allowed to run unhindered. I agree, further, that the onus of showing that the machinery should be interfered with lies very heavily upon the party making such a contention.
It is the Government's case that we are now confronted with a situation of two major upheavals that can completely change Britain's electoral face. We face the certainty of a kaleidoscopic change in its pattern. I do not exaggerate, because the change that is proposed in parliamentary boundaries is the most colossal change that has occurred since 1832. The change in the realm of local government—here I agree with the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party—will be the most substantial that has occurred since

1889. The proposals of the Boundary Commission involve proposals for 410 changes. We are told that the Redcliffe-Maud proposals would involve only 94. The situation is exactly the same as games of blocks that we played as children. To move one block five lines away to a gap might entail moving 30 or 40 blocks. That is the way these changes would affect a far greater number of constituencies than the 94 that have been mentioned.
The issue, therefore, is whether it is necessary, in the face of such facts, to allow this disruption to take place. Those listening to the tirades of the Opposition would think that the whole matter of parliamentary boundaries and their rough coincidence with local government boundaries had been pleaded here merely on an instant, had been introduced on a subterfuge and as a debating point. Those who have carefully studied the 1949 Act know full well what paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 says on this point. I do not think there can be any doubt whatsoever that this is the dominant guide line in the Act of 1949 for the Boundary Commissioners.
The question, therefore, to which I submit the House should direct its mind is whether the magnitude of these changes is so great, whether the situation that I have described constitutes such a massive extraneous factor, whether it is what in the courts would be called a nova causa interveniens, as not only to justify tampering with the machinery of 1949 but to demand that that machinery in this instance should be changed. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that the rules that were drawn up in 1949 are in no way immutable—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been heard in quietness till now. We should end as we began.

Mr. Morgan: As I was saying, these rules are in no way immutable. This House has the sovereign right to change them wherever it sees fit, and if the House recoiled from such a duty it would be abandoning one of its fundamental responsibilities. Machinery was set up in 1949, machinery that was supposed to be used for the benefit of the electorate. It would be a sheer perversity to pretend that the electorate should now be made the slave of that machinery.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 229.

Division No. 347.]
AYES
[9.57 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacDermot, Niall


Albu, Austen
Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir Eric(Islington,E.)
Macdonald, A. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Alldritt, Walter
Foley, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Allen, Scholefield
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John


Ashley, Jack
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.



Forrester John
Maclennan, Robert


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bacon, Rt. Hn, Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Barnett, Joel
Garrett, W.E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Baxter, William
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu,J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Beaney, Alan
Gray, Dr. Huge (Yarmouth)



Bence, Cyril
Greenwood, Rt. Hn, Anthony
Greenwood, Rt. Hn, Anthony


Benn, Rt. Hn, Anthony Wedgwood
Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marks, Kenneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, David


Binns, John
Griffith, Will (Exchange)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Maxwell, Robert


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamling, William
Mendelson, John


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Mikardo, Ian


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce




Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Boyden, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Roy
Moonman, Eric


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Henig, Stanley
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hilton, W. S.



Bulter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hobden, Dennis
Moyle, Roland




Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Horner, John
Neal, Harold


Cant, R. B.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Oakes, Gordon


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian


Coneannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Albert E.


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


Cronin, John
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)



Jenkins Rt. Hn. Roy (Stetchford)



Dalyell, Tam

Padley, Walter


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhonnda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondoa, West
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Delargy, H. J.
Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell, Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence



Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)



Dempsey, James

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Randail, Harry


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rankin, John


Edelman, Maurice

Richard, Ivor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Ellis, John
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire,S.)


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ennals, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Ensor, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)




Roebuck, Roy


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Evans loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McBride, Neil



Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William




Rowlands, E.
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sheldon, Robert
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thornton, Ernest.
Wlliams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Skeffington, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Slater, Joseph
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winnick, David


Small, William
Wallace, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Snow, Julian
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James



Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitaker, Ben
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Ray Dobson.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
White, Mrs. Eirene





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Lubbock, Eric


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Awdry Daniel
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacArthur, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Eyre, Reginald
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley


Balniel, Lord
Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil


Bessell, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Biffen, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Grieve, Percy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Braine, Bernard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenportr, Lt.-Col. Sir W alter
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Murton, Oscar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Paul
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Rt. Hn, Michael


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nott, John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hastings Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.




Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Carr, -Rt. Hn. Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin



Channon, H. P. G.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Chataway, Christopher
Hordem, Peter
Percival, Ian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, John


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordle, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dance, James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Davidson James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian



Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dean, Paul
Lambton, Viscount
Robson Brown, Sir William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lawler, Wallace
Russell, Sir Ronald


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.







Scott, Nicholas
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Wiggin, A. W.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Silvester, Frederick
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Speed, Keith
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Worsley, Marcus


Stodart, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wall, Patrick



Summers, Sir Spencer
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords Amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI BUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL

Lords Amendments further considered.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 1, line 9, leave out from "1969" to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert—
(1A) Subject to subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State, on or before 31st March, 1970, shall, in respect of each report of a Boundary Commission submitted under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969, lay before Parliament the draft

Order in Council required by section 2(5) of that Act.

(1B) On compliance with subsection (1A) above in relation to any report of a Boundary Commission the Secretary of State shall be relieved of any penalties imposed on him in respect of his breach, in respect of that report of the duty imposed by section 2(5) of that Act to lay a draft Order in Council before Parliament at the same time as he laid the report, and to do so as soon as may be after the report was submitted to him.

(1C) Where subsection (1B) above has effect in relation to a report, any proceedings pending against the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Court of Session, the High Court in Northern Ireland or the House of Lords shall, so far as they relate to breaches of duty by the Secetary of State in respect of that report, be treated as stayed.

(1D) Nothing in this section shall affect any order for costs made against the Secretary of State at any previous time, or the power to make any order for costs at any future time."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Callaghan]:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 229.

Division No. 348.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Albu, Austen
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Delargy, H. J.


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dell, Edmund


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dempsey, James


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Jack
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dobson, Ray


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Driberg, Tom


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Joel
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Baxter, William
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bence, Cyril
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Edelman, Maurice


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Binns, John
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
Ennals, David


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ensor, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Booth, Albert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Faulds, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fernyhough, E.




Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington,E.)
Luard, Evan
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, William (Rugby)


Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Randall, Harry


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Ford, Ben
McCann, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Forrester, John
MacColl, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn, Goronwy


Fowler, Gerry
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Ketmeth(St.P'c'as)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roebuck, Roy


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Gregory, Arnold
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rowlands, E.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Sheldon, Robert


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hamling, William
Mallalieu,J.P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Silverman, Julius


Harper, Joseph
Mapp, Charles
Skeffington, Arthur


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Hattersley, Roy
Marquand, David
Small, William


Hazell, Bert
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Snow, Julian


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maxwell, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Heffer, Eric S.
Mayhew, Christopher
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Henig, Stanley
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, John
Summerskill, Hn, Dr. Shirley


Hobden, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Symonds, J. B.


Horner, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Taverne, Dick


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Thomas, Rt. Hn, George


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moonman, Eric
Thornton, Ernest


Howie, W.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tomney, Frank


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Varley, Eric G.


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hynd, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick





Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Murray, Albert
Wallace, George


Janner, Sir Barnett
Neal, Harold
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Newens, Stan
Wellbeloved, James


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Norwood, Christopher
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Whitaker, Ben


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones,Rt.Hri.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitlock, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oram, Albert E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Judd, Frank
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Clifford, (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)



Padley, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lawson, George
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Winnick, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Park, Trevor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lee, John (Reading)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wyatt, Woodrew


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)



Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Allason James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Amery, Rt. Hn, Julian
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard


Astor, John
Bessell, Peter
Brewis, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Biffen, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Awdry, Daniel
Biggs-Davison, John
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. SirWalter


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Balniel, Lord
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Paul


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony (Colchester)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Sir Clive
Bullus, Sir Eric







Burden, F. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Percival, Ian


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Chataway, Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davis, W. R.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cordle John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Corfield, F. V.
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Robson Brown, Sir William




Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Royle, Anthony


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, Sir Ronald


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandy, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Lawler, Wallace
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Silvester. Frederick


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Tapsell, Peter


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fortescue, Tim
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St' fford &amp; Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tilney, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wall, Patrick


Cower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walters, Dennis


Grant, Anthony
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ward, Dame Irene


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar
Wiggin, A. W.


Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Younger, George


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Ctitharoe)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John



Hill, J. E. B.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move an Amendment to the Bill, in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to in page 1. line 9, leave out from '1969' to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert:
'; but, unless effect is given under and in accordance with the following provisions of this Act to the report so submitted by a Boundary Commission—
(a) subsections (2) to (6) below shall apply for the acceleration of their next general report under section 2(1) of that Act and

(b) subject to the provisions of this Act relating to Greater London, no report shall he submitted by them under section 2(3) of that Act before the submission of their next general report.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in section 2(1) of the 1958 Act. a Boundary Commission shall proceed forthwith to take into consideration the making of their next general report if Her Majesty by Order in Council so directs, and the report shall be submitted to the Secretary of State within four years after the coming into force of the Order or within such reduced


period as may be required by the Order; but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of an Order in Council under subsection (2) above for any part of the United Kingdom by the end of March, 1972 in any event (unless effect is given as aforesaid to the general report submitted by the Boundary Commission in the year 1969), and shall do so earlier if it appears to him that it would not by reason of the prospect of local government reorganisation be premature; and if the draft is approved by resolution of each House, the Secretary of State shall submit the draft to Her Majesty in Council.
(4) If an Order in Council is made under subsection (2) above for the acceleration of a Boundary Commission's next general report, but is not to come into force until after the beginning of April 1972, the Order shall reduce by a period not less than the interval between the beginning of that month and the coming into force of the Order the period of four years within which the Commission's report is to be submitted to the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament a draft of an Order in Council of which the coming into force is postponed beyond the beginning of April 1972 unless he is satisfied that the postponement beyond that time is required for reasons connected with local government reorganisation.
(5) The Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament a draft of an Order in Council reducing the period of four years within which a Boundary Commission's report is to be submitted, unless after consultation with the Commission he is satisfied that it will be practicable for them to submit the report within the reduced period.
(6) Where a Boundary Commission is to make a report by virtue of an Order in Council under subsection (2) above—
(a) no notice need be given by the Commission under section 2(4) of the Redistribution of Seats Act of their intention to consider the making of the report: and

(b) the enumeration date for purposes of Schedule 2 to that Act, instead of being the date on which notice is published under section 2(4), shall be the date on which the Order in Council comes into force.

In the cases provided for by the two next following subsections, effect may be given in accordance with the following subsections to the report submitted by a Boundary Commission under section 2(1) of the Redistribution of Seats Act in the year 1969 and, if effect is so given to it, the provision made by this Act for the acceleration of their text general report and for precluding the submission by them of reports under section 2(3) of that Act shall not apply.

(8) The Secretary of State may at any time before the end of March 1970 lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report so submitted by the Boundary Commission for Scotland or for Northern Ireland, if it appears to him reasonable so to do notwithstanding any proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

(9) Subject to the provisions of this Act relating to Greater London, the Secretary of State shall before the end of March 1972 lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report so submitted by the Boundary Commission for any part of the United Kingdom (other than a report to which effect has been given by virtue of the last foregoing subsection), if it appears to him that, by reason of the continuing prospect of local government reorganisation, it is not practicable to accelerate in accordance with this Act the next general report of that Commission.

(10) Section 3(2) to (6) of the Redistribution of Seats Act shall apply as if a draft Order in Council laid before Parliament under either of the two foregoing subsections were laid under section 2(5) of that Act'.

Question put, That the Amendment he made:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 229.

Division No. 349.]
AYES
[10.21 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Binns, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Coleman, Donald


Alldritt, Walter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.


Allen, Scholefieid
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James
Cronin, John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Bradley, Tom
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Barnett, Joel
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Baxter, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, H. J.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dell, Edmund


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B,
Dempsey, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Dewar, Donald




Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Park, Trevor


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Parker, John (Dagenham


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Randall, Harry


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Rankin, John


Ensor, David
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacColl, James
Roebuck, Roy


Fletcher,Rt.Hn.SirEric(Islington,E.)
MacDermot, Niall
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Rose, Paul


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipsw'ch)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowlands, E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ford, Ben
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fowler, Gerry
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)





MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Macpherson, Malcolm
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Slater, Joseph


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)




Greenwood,Rt. Hn.Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Snow, Julian


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, David (Rother valley)
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Marsh,Rt. Hn. Richard
Swain, Thomas


Hamilng, William (Fife, W.)
Maxwell, Robert
Symonds, J. B.


Hamling, William
Mayhew, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Hannan, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, John
Thornton, Ernest


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Hazell, Bert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William
Varley, Eric G.


Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Hobden, Dennis
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hooley, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Horner, John
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.) 


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitaker, Ben


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Murray, Albert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howie, W.
Neal, Harold
Whitlock, William


Hov. Rt. Hn. James
Newens, Stan
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Norwood, Christopher
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Winnick, David


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Owen, will (Morpeth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter



Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Ray Dobson.


Kelley, Richard
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Balniel, Lord
Bessell, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John


Astor, John
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Beamish, Col. sir Tufton
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald
Black, Sir Cyril


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Blaker, Peter







Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Body, Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pink, R. Bonner


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Prior, J. M. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robson Brown, Sir William


Chataway, Christopher
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Clark, Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cordle, John
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Crouch, David
Lawler, Wallace
Sinclair, Sir George


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dance, James
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Speed, Keith


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tapsell, Peter


Doughty, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Tilney, John


Emery, Peter




Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Farr, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wiggin, A. W.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhew, Victor
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Grieve, Percy
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Onslow, Cranley



Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, as a consequential Amendment to the Bill, to divide Clause 1 into two Clauses, the first to consist of subsections (1) to (6) inclusive, and the second to consist of subsections (7) to (10) inclusive.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move the following consequential Amendment to the Bill: in page 4, line 40, at end insert:
(3) Any reference in this Act to local government reorganisation shall be construed as a


reference to the introduction for any part of the United Kingdom of new arrangements for local government.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

ALTERATION OF CONSTITUENCIES IN GREATER LONDON AND CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS AREAS

Lords Amendment No. 4: Leave out Clause 2.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: in page 3, line 31, at end insert:
(5) Section 2 of this Act, in so far as it provides for giving effect to the report made by the Boundary Commission for England, shall not apply to so much of that report as relates to Greater London, and references in this Act to giving effect to that report under that section shall be construed accordingly; but in subsection (4) above the reference to an Order in Council made under section 3 of the Redistribution of Seats Act includes, in relation to areas outside Greater London, an order made by virtue of section 2 of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

IMMEDIATE DIVISION OF CONSTITUENCIES WITH ABNORMALLY LARGE ELECTORATES.

Lords Amendments No. 5: Leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, The following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: in page 4, line 30, at end add—
(3) This section shall not affect the operation of section 2 of this Act in relation to the constituencies named in Schedule 2, and any Order in Council made in relation to any of

them by virtue of section 2 shall supersede any Order so made by virtue of this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

ALTERED CONSTITUENCIES IN GREATER LONDON AND ADJOINING COUNTIES

Lords Amendment No. 6: Leave out Schedule 1.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONSTITUENCIES TO BE DIVIDED UNDER SECTION 3

Lords Amendment No. 7: Leave out Schedule 2.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Title

Lords Amendment No. 8: In line 4, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 10 and insert
not later than 31st March 1970, to relieve the Secretary of State of liability for breach of statutory duty".

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Elystan Morgan, Mr. Ross, and Sir D. Renton; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — LATE NIGHT REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13th October], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I hoped last night to entice the Solicitor-General to commend the Bill to the House. I was out of order perhaps in doing so, because the Standing Order had not been suspended, but I hope that tonight I may entice him to do so.
This is a consolidation Bill, with corrections and improvements, so we know that the draftsmen realised that the law was imperfect and could not be consolidated as it stood. In the drafting and, later, during the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills, an extraordinary anomaly in the law was unearthed, which is now enshrined in Clause 5(3), dealing with the transfer of licences on death. Without going into the merits at all, I would say that it is a great pity that, this having been unearthed, we have to consolidate the law and perpetuate the anomaly.
I would have hoped that the Government would have said that it was untimely to consolidate until the law had been amended, but I suppose they were enthusiastic to consolidate the great social reforms of Gladstone in 1860. One of the Acts consolidated here is his measure against gin drinkers of the time and their disturbance of the neighbourhood with bawdy songs. We are joining that now with the present law against the menace of our time—pop music and noisy motor-cycles outside "calls", about which I am sure Gladstone would be delighted, but that is no excuse for perpetuating an anomaly in the law. When something like this appears in the early stages of this work, I would hope that legislation could be postponed for a time and the law amended, so that when it gets into a consolidation Measure it is in a satisfactory state.

10.39 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said yesterday that he hoped that I would commend the Bill

to the House. In acting as I did, I sought to have regard to what I thought was the wish of the House, taking into account the time at which the Business was reached. I was content simply to propose the Question formally yesterday evening, but that meant no reflection, I hope it goes without saying on the usefulness of the Bill. The hon. Member said that the Bill will achieve some purpose and will be of considerable use, and I make it clear that I share that opinion.
He referred yesterday and again today to what he described yesterday as a gap and today as an anomaly in the law and said that this should have led us to have a consolidation Bill with Amendments. First, I should like to consider his proposition on the hypothesis, which in this instance I do not admit, that there is a gap or an anomaly in the law. I thought that he was in danger in this line of reasoning of appearing to argue that a consolidation Bill should not be introduced unless the law to be consolidated was in a perfect state. In my view that is not the way to make progress. It is surely better that a confusing mass of old Statutes should be replaced by a consolidating Statute containing the whole of the law on the subject in clear terms, even though it is arguable that that law can be improved. If the Law is defective here, it will be possible for it to be amended by a later Bill, and it is perhaps a suitable topic for a Private Member's Bill.
Having dealt with that, I turn to consider the hon. Member's suggestion that the law is defective and that there is either a gap or an anomaly. It is possible that I am not quite seized of the defect which he sees in the existing law, but a careful reading of the minutes of the evidence of the Joint Committee shows that it appears to have been satisfied with Clause 5 as it stands, and there is, as far as I am aware, no evidence that existing practices are causing trouble in this field.
Where the holder of a. late night refreshment house licence dies, the position is that on his death the licensing authority may by endorsement or otherwise authorise his personal representative or his widow or child if possessed of and occupying the premises to which the licence relates to continue to keep the


refreshment house until the end of the following 31st March without taking out a fresh licence or paying any additional duty. In this connection it is important to recognise that there is no power under the existing law to refuse a licence. What one can do is to impose conditions upon the grant of a licence, and if the conditions are broken then there is the consequence of disqualification. The vital point is that in no circumstances can one refuse the licence. What the existing Bill provides in this connection is that if in the course of a year's current licence the licence holder dies, his widow or personal representative has the very small but not derisory advantage of the benefit of the licence for the balance of the year. She or the personal representative is not obliged to go immediately and get a new licence and pay—I believe that the present duty is one guinea per year—the full duty.
It may be thought that that is a reasonable enough way of dealing with the situation of the widow or personal representative of the deceased licence holder. If anybody else desires to get for himself a licence to run a late night refreshment house on the premises of the deceased licence holder, there is nothing to stop him from doing so. He can apply and the licensing authority has no mandate or power to refuse; and the only point that distinguishes him from the widow or personal representative is that he must pay the one guinea duty straight away.
In these circumstances, to speak about there being a gap or anomaly in the existing law—that is, unless I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's criticism—is, to say the least, putting it too high. To defer the advantages and usefulness of consolidation because of such a matter would be unreasonable and a disproportionate treatment of the matter.

Mr. Graham Page: My complaint is that the law, having given the licensing authority the right to transfer the licence to the personal representative, goes on to say that it can do so only if the personal representative is in occupation of the late night refreshment house. It is most unlikely that the personal representative, who might even be a bank trustee, would be in occupation. Thus,

for the transfer period it would be of benefit for it to be transferred to the personal representative, although he may not be in occupation of the premises.

The Solicitor-General: It seems that the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that we are here dealing with a very narrow point. The advantage that is conferred is the advantage of not having to pay a new one guinea duty for the balance of the current year. I suggest that it is appropriate that that advantage should be confined to the personal representative in occupation, the widow or representative as the case may be. On that ground I do not accept the criticism of the hon. Gentleman and I certainly do not regard this as a matter which would justify the deferment of this process of consolidation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.…[Mr. Harper.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

POWER OF CONSTABLE TO ENTER AND KEEP ORDER

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I could raise a point here, because I cannot believe that the process of consolidation is being properly carried out. Clause 9, to which we have agreed, states:
If the licensee of a late night refreshment house knowingly permits .. drunken and disorderly persons to …".
to do various things:
he shall be guilty of an offence.
Drunken and disorderly persons are specifically mentioned.
Clause 10(2) states:
Every constable is hereby authorised and required, on the demand of the manager or occupier of a late night refreshment house licensed under this Act, or of any servant or agent of the manager ….


May we be told how a constable is to know whether he is being approached by an agent of the manager and required to remove certain people——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a consolidation Measure and the hon. Gentleman is not in order in asking questions on the substance of the Bill in that fashion.

Mr. Cooke: If I am not to get an explanation of that point, I am sure that I am on good ground in drawing attention to the incompatibility of Clause 9 with Clause 10(2), which says that the constable has to
… assist in expelling from the refreshment house drunken, riotous, quarrelsome and disorderly persons".
Many people are quarrelsome, even in the House——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that line, which is not permissible with a consolidation Bill. The law is not being changed but consolidated. All he can argue is whether or not consolidation can take place now.

Mr. Cooke: I maintain that consolidation cannot be right when there is complete incompatibility between the two Clauses. In the one case, it is wrong if drunken and disorderly persons——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must respect the Ruling of the Chair. I have already ruled that he is out of order in pursuing that line of discussion.

Mr. Cooke: I do not wish to be riotous or quarrelsome, Mr. Gourlay, so I withdraw anything I have said that is out of order. I only hope that we shall have an explanation from the Minister. I took the trouble to get advice from the Table as to whether I might raise the point, and I got the impression that I could speak on incompatibility. However, if I missed my chance on Second Reading, perhaps I can take it on Third Reading.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Perhaps I might pursue what has been said, but in a rather different way. I think it is quite clear that we are now going into a period in which Acts will be consolidated in this field and in other fields through the Scarman Com-

mittee and other committees. It would be of great assistance to the House if before such Measures come for consolidation, as in this case, there were an opportunity for the matter to be carefully ventilated in order that minor Amendments of the sort which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has suggested—be it right or wrong, I take not the point—and the sort of point of incompatibility which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has raised, could be cleared through the channels of some form of committee composed of hon. Members of all parties. We could then, when dealing with consolidation Measures, carry out small amendments on which there is probably no party philosophy at issue at all. The House could then produce a consolidation Measure which at the same time could, by agreement, carry into effect relatively minor amendments. That is a contribution which I believe will be of value not only to this Bill and is in order, but also to future Bills. What I am saying in effect is that we ought not——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is hardly relating his remarks to the Question before the Committee, That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. He is making a Second Reading speech. I have given him a certain amount of latitude, but his remarks are not in order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: What I am saying in effect is that we ought not to pass Clause 10 because it does not achieve the purpose of consolidation, which is an improvement to make people better understand the law. It is better that they do not understand the law if the law is a stupid ass and it is better then not to consolidate, but if we are to consolidate so that we can all discover it and citizens can read and appreciate the law, it will be of immeasurable advantage if on relatively small matters., not of great principle, we could assist those who at the same time are advising us not only on consolidation but also in improved administration of the law. I ask the Solicitor-General, when he is considering this matter with Mr. Justice Scarman and others who have to consider these matters, to see if they can find some way of enabling these matters to be written into


consolidation Measures as and when they arise.

The Solicitor-General: I want to keep within the bounds of order in dealing with the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and at the same time to show proper courtesy to the hon. Members who have raised points. Hon. Members will appreciate that this Bill in its present form, Clause 10 included, has reached the Committee under a consolidation procedure which permits all the corrections and minor improvements in legislative provisions so that certain matters which I should have thought would probably have come well within the ambit of the sort of criticism the hon. Member has put forward have received the consideration of the members of the Joint Committee.
I take note of the observations which have been made and the importance it is sought to attach to them and we shall bear these matters in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 7, line 9, leave out "1st September, 1969" and insert "1st January, 1970."

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I also came armed with a manuscript Amendment to amend this retrospective legislation, but I am a little more optimistic. If I may hand in my manuscript Amendment, it is to alter the date to 1st November, 1969.

The Deputy Chairman: We have received a second Amendment, but the Committee can discuss only the Amendment which is being proposed.

The Solicitor-General: This was an anomaly. It is anomalous that the date 1st September appears in the Bill. It arises as a result of the history of this matter. I am dealing with it by way of a manuscript Amendment because as matters developed—the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will not

blame me for this—the Second Reading of the Bill was deferred from yesterday and, therefore, this issue had to be dealt with in this way.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. May we discuss my manuscript Amendment with the Amendment proposed by the Solicitor-General?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, it will be in order to discuss both Amendments together.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Obviously the Bill could not be allowed to go through having retrospective effect and saying that it shall come into operation on 1st September 1969. I am not sure why it is necessary to delay its coming into operation until 1st January, 1970. We are passing the Bill tonight with no Amendment except as to date. Let us bring it into operation nearly at once. I have chosen 1st November, 1969, as being more acceptable than 1st January, 1970.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). There is no objection to 1st November, 1969. There is nothing new in the Bill. We are told that we cannot debate it because it is a consolidation Measure, so there cannot be anything new in it. My hon. Friend has put an incontrovertible argument in favour of bringing the Bill into operation at once.

Mr. William Wilson: As a member of the Joint Consolidation Committee, and recognising that the Bill does not alter the law, may I suggest that the two Front Bench spokesmen should throw up a penny and decide in that way whether to have November or January.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (SOUTH-EASTERN REGIONAL HOSPITAL BOARD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to proposals which were drafted by the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board, Scotland, on 11th July. It is a pity that they were not available in time for our debate in the Scottish Grand Committee on the Health Estimates on 8th July, three days previously. It would have been of advantage to have had these proposals, which are radical in their scope and would have allowed us a little more time. However, they were not issued to Members of Parliament for the district or to the Press or even to the hospitals closely involved until 29th July, which was after the House had risen for the Summer Recess. Therefore, this is the first opportunity that I have of discussing them.
I shall concentrate on three projects which are mentioned in the proposals. First is the Royal Sick Children's Hospital; second the Royal Infirmary; and third the Western General Hospital. I shall be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman can refresh my memory on certain events which took place at the end of 1964 with regard to the Sick Children's Hospital in Edinburgh.
I have been looking up the OFFICIAL REPORTS and, somewhat to my surprise, I can find no reference to the matter there apart from one Question which was asked by myself and answered by the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). But my recollection is that when I held the office which the hon. Gentleman at the moment holds there was a very strong campaign to the effect that the Sick Children's Hospital was in such a condition that work virtually could not continue there in safety, that the most urgent steps had to be taken with regard to it, and I can very clearly remember that a decision had to be taken on the siting of a new hospital. There were strenuous and understandable moves to have it sited within the complex of the Royal Infirmary.
I can remember that I was advised that it was quite impossible to get planning permission within the time by which this new hospital must be built. As ground was available within the complex of the Western General Hospital, I advised the Secretary of State that if the hospital were put near the Royal Infirmary it could not be started within 10 years and our advice was that we could not possible wait that amount of time.
The present Government clearly accepted this urgency because in the 1966 Review of the Hospital Plan it was stated that it was hoped to start the Royal Sick Children's Hospital in the period of that Review, 1966–71; and, indeed, that review also stated that a new hospital in West Lothian, to be sited at Livingston, and the plastic surgery unit at Edinburgh, which had been in the 1964 review, were to be postponed to make room for the Sick Children's Hospital and one or two other comparatively minor projects.
This project is not even in the programme for the period after 1971–72, a period which, incidentally, is not defined at all, compared with the quinquennial terms which previous hospital plans had, and it features only as No. 2 on the list of what are described as "Further priorities". I should like to know how it comes that the extreme urgency which demanded the rebuilding of this hospital in 1964 has been so completely dissipated that it has disappeared from the programme other than a mention in "Further priorities".
I want now to turn to the two other projects that I mentioned, at the Royal Infirmary and the Western Hospital. I take them together because I believe it is natural and proper that I should do so. They are great teaching hospitals, upon whose complementary association a great deal of emphasis is laid in the report of the working party which was included in the circulation of the recommendations of the hospital board. I hope I can speak dispassionately about these hospitals. The Western General is within my constituency and, therefore, obviously I have an attachment to it. But my life I probably owe to the skill of the nursing that I once received in the Royal Infirmary.
Friendly rivalry has its place within a complementary association, but I am


certain that there should not be, and must not be, animosity between these hospitals. An interesting part of the working party's report is that which deals with the "complementary association" which, it says, it was hoped would develop between the two. It does not seem to have worked out that way. In paragraph 4 on page 2, we are told that the Royal is developing special units in parallel with those at the Western, and I think it a not unfair interpretation of the working party's observations to go so far as to say that the complementary concept is pretty well a "dead duck".
I should not say that the results of this complementary association are altogether insignificant. I understand that Professor Gillingham, the professor of neurosurgery, has his real centre of operations—I use that word not only in the medical sense—at the Royal but he has a unit at the Western as well.
I do not propose to pass any judgment on the conclusion of the working party that the plans for the Western should be put right back while work on the rebuilding of the Royal should go on, since the working party has had access to a great deal of information which I do not have. I merely point out that a sum approaching £3 million has been spent on some extremely important basic foundation services at the Western, and if a superstructure to those foundations is not to follow, the investment of that £3 million cannot be properly and fully utilised and cannot yield the dividends which it ought to yield.
With medical science moving at the pace it is, one could not possibly make plans and keep them rigid in a straitjacket, but the changing of plans, with hospitals being in in 1964, out in 1966 and in again in 1969—that is what has happened, for instance, to the hospital at Livingston—must lead to great administrative expense in the planning departments and tremendous frustration, too, not only in those departments but, perhaps even more, among the medical profession.
I question the importance which is attached to modernising the maternity unit at Simpson at a cost of £1 million. If one of the two maternity units at the

Royal or the Western is to be brought right up to date, it seems to me that everything points to its being the Western. I do not say that because the Western unit is 100 years old whereas the Simpson was absolutely slap up to date only 30 years ago. I say it because the Sick Children's Hospital, I understand, is still to be built within the complex of the Western, and where that new Sick Children's Hospital is to be, I am told on extremely good medical advice, there must be a tip-top maternity unit close by.
Finally, a point about the composition of the working party. Mention is made in the board's proposals of a new spinal unit at the Princess Margaret Rose Hospital. The Minister may remember correspondence I had with him on the subject. Perhaps he does not, because it is nearly three years ago. Practically every authority of note has declared that that unit should be sited not at the Margaret Rose but at the Astley Ainslie. Among those authorities were men like Norman Dott, Professor Gillingham, Sir John Bruce, the professor of surgery at the university, and the head of the Stoke Mandeville spinal unit.
The Minister admitted all this in his correspondence with me, but said that the board considered that the opinions of those who were to work in the unit, the active clinicians, were more valuable than the opinions of these eminent gentlemen. If that is to be the thinking—and I think it questionable—it is worth pointing out that not a single member from either of the hospitals I have discussed was on the working party. No clinician took part who was to do the work within whichever was to be the new hospital. No one from one of them, and possible no one from either, was asked for his advice on this matter. Certainly the Western General was not consulted at any stage. I can well remember the heated criticism when the Western Regional Hospital Board in 1964 was supposed to have decided against proceeding with three general hospitals in the western part of Scotland without consulting the boards. It is certainly true in this case that the Western General knew nothing of the proposals affecting it until it read the newspapers on 29th July.
I am on record, and would certainly stick to this, as admitting the extremely


difficult issues that arise when the demands for additional services and new or replacement hospital buildings run ahead into the limits of the investment programme, so that is one aspect of the problem facing the hospital board which I do not criticise tonight. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether these proposals are any more than proposals—whether his right hon. Friend has yet considered them, whether he has yet to consider them, and whether he will decide on them. Perhaps he will also comment on some of the points I have raised.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has concentrated on one or two hospitals within the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board's proposals for the period after 1972. But I think that as well as answering his points I should set these proposals in a rather wider context, because otherwise it is not possible to see exactly what is happening here and why the proposals have been brought forward in the way that they have.
The programme that the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board provided for the Secretary of State is one of five, because other regional boards have similarly produced programmes for the period after 1972. They have been produced at the request of my right hon. Friend so that we can look at the whole hospital building programme for that period and determine priorities not just within a particular board's area but within the Scottish context.
On the question of timing, the proposals of the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board were the last of the five proposals to come in, and it is only now that we have the five sets of proposals that we can look at the Scottish position as a whole.
In asking the hospital boards to submit lists of the schemes they would like to start in the period after 1972, we gave each board an approximate total figure within which to frame its proposals. We also asked them to indicate what other schemes they would include if larger allocations could be made available. The basis on which the boards were asked to prepare programmes was, therefore, in itself provisional, and it may alter in

total according to Government decisions about the resources which can be made available for hospital building in the period in question and may alter in distribution among regions if, in looking at the priorities of the project, we feel such adjustment to be necessary. Of course, this is all in the context that we are considering all the boards' proposals at present and may wish to take up with individual boards the priorities that they have determined within their own regions.
The sum to which the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board was asked to plan was a total cost to completion of £20 million. It is worth pointing out here, as I have done a number of times, that the amount of money spent on hospital capital expenditure in the last few years has considerably increased. In the year 1961–62, for example, the figure was just over £4 million. That went up in 1964–65 to over £8 million, and in 1968–69 it is about £15 million. Thus, when considering the difficulties which the boards and the Government have in determining priorities within the budgets that we have available, one has to remember all the time that these budgets themselves have been considerably increased over the last few years.
The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board, in producing its proposals for the post-1972 period, took the view that it was necessary to recognise the changes and problems which had arisen since its long-term plans were last reviewed in 1965. This is in line with what the hon. Gentleman himself said—that it is not possible to produce rigid programmes or rigid priorities and stick to them regardless of changes in circumstances.
It is a criticism which applies to the hon. Gentleman's Government as well as to our Government that in the past hospital building programmes were far too definite about long-term planning, with the result that we have had on occasion to have these changes made in priorities and dates of starting and so on, which, I agree, are frustrating and irritating to the staffs of the hospitals concerned.
In any case, the South-Eastern board, in looking at its programme for post-1972, decided in particular that due regard had to be given to the provision of facilities for the ageing population, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, even if this meant altering its


strategy of planning which had rested hitherto on the early and current replacement of the major teaching hospitals in Edinburgh.
Without going into the merits of this decision, we all know that there has been a considerable amount of concern recently about the priorities which in the past have been devoted to mental and mental deficiency hospitals. I have taken the view that some of that concern is perhaps more appropriate in conditions in England and Wales than in Scotland. That is my reading of the situation. Nevertheless, we have taken account of the fact that the provision for the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped does in Scotland still require very considerable improvement. So in deciding on its allocation of the £20 million the board took that fully into account.
The £20 million therefore breaks down as follows: teaching hospitals development—that is, the Western General and the Royal Infirmary—£8 million; psychiatric, mental deficiency and geriatric services, £6 million; obstetric services—that is, the Simpson, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—£1 million; special units such as plastic surgery, burns and spinal injuries, and rehabilitation, £1·75 million; the West Lothian District General Hospital, £3 million; supporting services, such as laundries, etc., £500,000. That was the breakdown in the board's proposals to my right hon. Friend. The proportion of the total allocated to the teaching hospitals is about 40 per cent., which is a not insignificant proportion.
Nevertheless, the board's decision in this respect was not an easy one to make and was made only after it had received the views of a working party set up specially to examine this question. The hon. Member mentioned the working party report and has obviously therefore read it. I think he will agree with me that it is a careful analysis of the problems of teaching hospitals in Edinburgh. The various considerations which he mentioned have been very much taken into account. The university itself, which has a large interest, and the Scottish Home and Health Department as well as the regional board were represented on the working party, but the

final decisions, of course, are those of the regional board itself.
The working party came to the conclusion that, if the best interests of the community were to be served within the financial constraints placed on the board, it would be possible to proceed only with phase II of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary reconstruction in the teaching hospitals' share of the programme and, therefore, the development of the Western General Hospital and the building of the new Sick Children's Hospital would have to be deferred. Perhaps I may interpolate that the working party specifically mentioned that the various improvements made in the Sick Children's Hospital over the last few years made its replacement, in the working party's view, less of a priority than further work on the Royal Infirmary and the Western General Hospital, and that is the explanation for the different scale of priority which has now been granted to the Sick Children's Hospital. In any case, on the basis of the working party's report, the proposals of the board have been placed before the Secretary of State.
I know that there is concern in the Western General Hospital and I very much sympathise with the medical and other staff there in the disappointment they must feel at what they would regard as the lack of priority which has been given to the development of the Western General Hospital in the board's proposals. However, I must stress that in doing this the board has emphasised that these deferments do not entail any change in its policy to develop the Western General Hospital as a major teaching and community hospital and to replace the Royal Hospital for Sick Children.
As these schemes are not included within the £8 million which I have mentioned as being allocated to teaching hospitals, the regional board proposes that £1 million should be spent on improving and maintaining services for the Sick Children's Hospital and the Western General in the meantime so that the services can be improved in this interim period. This sum of money should make it possible to effect material improvements at both hospitals. At the Western General the improvements will supplement important major developments which have already been provided, or which are being built, such as the radiotherapy institute, the department of sur-


gical neurology, the transplantation surgery unit, new laboratories and, more recently, the new out-patient and diagnostic department, laundry and boiler plants.
The bulk of the balance of the £8 million for the teaching hospital programme, about 17 million, will be allocated to phase II of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary so that it can immediately follow the completion of phase I. The second phase will provide a substantial area of academic accommodation to meet university needs, accident and emergency facilities, intensive therapy facilities, outpatient and investigative and diagnostic facilities. The board considers that it is necessary to proceed with the complete scheme in order to maintain the service that the hospital gives to the community and to maintain the position of the medical school.
I understand the disappointment on the score of the new maternity unit at the Western General Hospital, but the most pressing problem with maternity services in the region, as the working party brought out, is the need to upgrade the Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion, which at present is operating well below its potential because of the inadequate and out-dated accommodation. The board has, therefore, allocated £1 million in its programme to this purpose. The occupancy of this hospital in 1968–69 was only 69 per cent., and this compares very unfavourably with other hospitals in the region. With upgraded facilities, the number of women admitted should be able to be increased considerably.

Mr. Stodart: It can hardly be as outdated as the Western General.

Mr. Millan: Hospitals built 30 years ago do not meet modern requirements. The Western General has had improvements in the last 100 years, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The position at the Simpson is serious, and we are not getting the major benefits we should be able to get from that hospital because of the inadequate facilities. The occupancy rate is a very poor one in comparison with other developments elsewhere
As to the spinal injuries unit, the location of that was not considered by the recent working party. This is an old argument which I rememeber quite vividly. It was drawn to my attention when I

visited Edenhall a couple of months ago by the Astley Ainslie Board of Management chairman and one or two of the board of management members, among others. The decision was taken a long time ago, whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with it. The argument is not really open any longer.
These are the particular points that the hon. Member raised. I have tried as well as saying something about these points, to place them in the context of the hospital building programme as a whole to some extent, but certainly in the context of the need for the regional board in producing its proposals for us, to look at the priorities over the region as a whole, geographically and in terms of the particular kind of facilities which it feels most accurately and adequately meets the development needs of 1972 and beyond.
These programmes are still to be considered by the Secretary of State. We will consider the relevant priorities of the schemes included in the programme, and we shall also be considering the question of what priority might be given to any additional schemes we find are possible to insert in the programme, either now or later, either in the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board area or one of the other board's areas in Scotland.
There is certainly an element of flexibility in the position. When we have finished the consideration of the board's proposals we want to give a certain definite order at least on priorities for projects in the South-Eastern Region and the other regions of Scotland. We shall certainly have full regard to the priorities which the regional board has given to us. We would not lightly discard the priorities of any board. We have to integrate the five regional programmes into a Scottish programme and try to get the right order of priorities for Scotland as a whole. When we have done that each board will be advised of the scheme for which planning should proceed on the basis that it will start——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.